'Healing' Detected In Antarctic Ozone Hole, Says Study (bbc.com) 95
kheldan quotes a report from BBC: Researchers say they have found the first clear evidence that the thinning in the ozone layer above Antarctica is starting to heal. The scientists said that in September 2015 the hole was around 4 million sq km smaller than it was in the year 2000 -- an area roughly the size of India. The gains have been credited to the long term phasing out of ozone-destroying chemicals. [The study also sheds new light on the role of volcanoes in making the problem worse.] The ozone-destroying chemicals, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), have been shown to be declining in their influence, causing the ozone layer to grow once more. "Even though we phased out the production of CFCs in all countries including India and China around the year 2000, there's still a lot of chlorine left in the atmosphere," Prof Solomon told the BBC World Service Science in Action program. "It has a lifetime of about 50-100 years, so it is starting to slowly decay and the ozone will slowly recover." Scientists also believe that volcanic sulphur can form tiny particles that act as seeds to Polar Stratospheric Clouds, where chlorine chemistry occurs that destroys the ozone.
8 year old fucking news. (Score:1)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-11-16/ozone-hole-closing-up-research-shows/727460
Look at the fucking date.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So, no, it isn't such old news.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but ozone in the stratosphere does make the surface of the Earth cooler because it intercepts ultraviolet radiation before it reaches the troposphere.
Slashdot has even posted about this before (Score:1)
https://science.slashdot.org/story/13/02/10/1930214/over-the-antarctic-the-smallest-ozone-hole-in-a-decade
https://science.slashdot.org/story/11/05/20/2038228/signs-of-ozone-layer-recovery-detected
https://slashdot.org/story/06/10/21/0548245/nasa-announces-record-ozone-hole
https://slashdot.org/story/06/05/27/0654216/ozone-layer-improving-faster-than-expected
https://science.slashdot.org/story/04/10/02/1346252/ozone-hole-getting-smaller
Again, look at the fucking dates.
How the fuck is it "news" that the antarcti
Re: (Score:2)
Actually this is new (Score:5, Insightful)
The other stuff was dumbed down headline.
Re: (Score:2)
The news, if you read the TFA, is that scientists figured out a way to clean up the data: they were measuring the hole at its peak, but there are often weather conditions that time of year that add noise to the measurements. Instead, they measured the rate of the growth of the hole at a different time of year, when there are usually no such weather conditions. That gave them a much smoother look at the trend and the affect of volcanic activity.
Of course, the whole ozone thing must be completely a hoax mad
Re: (Score:3)
I'll start
Evolution v Intelligent Design - a small subset of Republicans, perhaps 20%. And many Evangelicals don't vote (and some still vote Dem)
Fraking is evil - Dems
Vaccination - leans Dem
Stem cell research - Republican have problem only with embryonic research
GMO - Democrat. GMO and Embryonic stem cell are opposed for much the same reason. It's mora
Re: (Score:2)
Science has time and again proven that fracking is perfectly safe, and the places with flammable water had the issue before the fracking due to the nat gas being in the rocks already.
Being against fracking is anti intellectual.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, sure, keep up the fud.
If you understand the technology behind fracking, you might understand how it is not possible for it to pollute the water table, but keep acting like you know everything about the subject.
Re: (Score:1)
Theres good evidence that frakking creates geological instability and pollutes the water table, not through the fractured shale but through the bore hole/surface spills, in addition to air pollution and frakking being a regression and encouragement to remain in a hydrocarbon based economy at a time when we as a species really need to be moving to renewables.
Theres also good reasons to oppose GMOs or heavily regulate, mostly due to the nature of seed markets these days: its very easy for Monsanto or other se
Re: (Score:2)
Evolution v Intelligent Design - a small subset of Republicans, perhaps 20%. And many Evangelicals don't vote (and some still vote Dem)
Unfortunately, this is quite wrong. The numbers you get depend heavily on how you ask the question, but recent polling [pewforum.org] suggests that a plurality of Republicans (48%) believe that humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time vs. only 27% of Democrats. About a third of *all* adults in the U.S. hold this position. If you ask whether God created humans in their present form, it's closer to 40%, and has been for decades [gallup.com]. You can find other polls here [pollingreport.com] showing similar results.
Regardless, o
Re: (Score:2)
I don't consider theists to be anti-science. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. Even such as Ann Colter (sp) bring up this point. The irrational, anti-science types are a much smaller percentage than you make out. The majority of the polls are trying to bring forth a narrative as opposed to understanding a complicated set of beliefs.
Re: (Score:2)
Gun control is supported by the GOP base? WTF?
You'd be surprised. It depends heavily on which question you ask. Often questions about specific policies get way more support than more abstract questions. Here's an example from a Quinnipiac national poll from a few days ago (N=1610, MoE = +/-2.4%). For the question:
Do you support or oppose stricter gun laws in the United States?
26% of Republicans answered "support", while 69% answered "oppose". But that same poll also asked:
Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?
For this question, "support" won 90%-9% among Republicans. The poll also asked:
As you may know, individuals on the U.S. government's terrorist watch list are not allowed to fly on planes. Would you support or oppose banning those on the U.S. government's terrorist watch list from purchasing guns?
which was supported 85%-12% by Republicans. Other polls show simil
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the no-fly list is the lack of due process. It's a list which can be abused too easily. Put in the basic checks:
1. Make the list public.
2. Be able to see the reason you're on the list
3. Due Process regarding evidence
Interesting isn't it as it is the Democrats who are opposed to due process. I wonder why?
Re evolution - that is a hard one to use to l
Re: (Score:1)
The healing is taking place because of the cooperation of those such as yourself! Thank you!!
Re: (Score:2)
since it takes control from those of us that want to promote AGW.
Not in the least. It is a good example of the world coming together and doing something effective about a problem, exactly what we should be doing more of in regard to AGW as well.
Wasn't this already confirmed? (Score:3)
Am I missing something or NASA already confirmed that ten years ago?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
3 years ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago, and 12 years ago:
https://science.slashdot.org/story/13/02/10/1930214/over-the-antarctic-the-smallest-ozone-hole-in-a-decade
https://science.slashdot.org/story/11/05/20/2038228/signs-of-ozone-layer-recovery-detected
https://slashdot.org/story/06/10/21/0548245/nasa-announces-record-ozone-hole
https://slashdot.org/story/06/05/27/0654216/ozone-layer-improving-faster-than-expected
https://science.slashdot.org/story/04/10/02/1346252/ozone-hole-getting-smaller
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and the previous generation of deniers claimed it was just random fluctuation. It had to be because CFCs are harmless and the ozone hole was just a natural variation.
So NASA points out that the trend is continuing nicely in the way random fluctuations seldom do.
Re: (Score:1)
There absolutely were companies denying their research. If you're interested read up on the Montreal Protocol and DuPoint. It's kind of funny considering their stance now: http://www.dupont.com/corporate-functions/our-company/insights/articles/position-statements/articles/montreal-protocol.html
Not to the same level but it's a different world now and the costs associated with remedying AGW (if it is even possible) are significant to far more than a few big companies ;)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, and the previous generation of deniers claimed it was just random fluctuation.
That sounds a lot like a fallacy. Who gets to decide that those denying CFC effects are the previous generation of whatever?
Claiming that denying CFC effects is equivalent to denying that current temperature changed is withing natural fluctuations is on the same level.
Arguments should be able to stand on their own. Proving that a statement was made by Hitler isn't the same as proving that the statement is wrong.
In a similar fashion the "follow the money" reasoning is wrong, it doesn't matter if you can prov
Re: (Score:3)
That sounds a lot like a fallacy
It's a statement of fact. An observation. By definition, it cannot be a fallacy. It could be incorrect but since it is not a conclusion, it cannot be a fallacy.
But feel free to look at the history of the Montreal protocol [wikipedia.org].
I can't even imagine what you thought you read from me that inspired the rest of your rant.
Re: (Score:2)
Anecdote is not data.
what? Ok then.
A data point is not a trend.
what? Oh
You got lucky, two data points could be random noise compared to history.
Seriously a third point?
Correlation does not prove causation. I think aliens did it.
Re: (Score:2)
Changing the composition of the atmosphere is definitely NOT a form of leaving me alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For someone with no understanding of the process, yes that is true. For those same people the "this" being confirmed is beyond their comprehension as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
I understand that you are referring to Cl55 from atmospheric nuclear tests, however there was another source related to the nuclear industry.
The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant [wikipedia.org] was the largest emitter of CFC114 into the atmosphere for many years due to the miles of pipes that it used to pump the gas to enrich uranium in the form of Uranium hexafluoride [wikipedia.org] or "Hex". CFC-114 was one of the gasses known to deplete the ozone layer and was regulated by the Montreal Protocol [wikipedia.org]. The plant was closed down in 2013 so it
Re: (Score:2)
Until 25 years ago every can of spray and every fridge was "powered" by CFCs ... since we abolished them the Ozone layer is recovering slowly. Everywhere, not only in the Antarctic. But there was a real hole, and over the rest of the world "only" the layer thinned out.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, which was in line with the Montreal Protocol coming into force in 1989. However the hole peaked in size in 2006. The Nuclear Industry gets an exemption to the M.P so it can use CFC114 in the enrichment process and while it was still operating it leaked over a ton of CFC114 into the atmosphere each day of those 25 years.
I don't think it is unreasonable to point that out, after all, it was the leading emitter of CFC114 according to EPA data.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder why it is so difficult to "not leak" such "waste products".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So the ozone is Holeir-than-Thou
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
When I was growing up, the propaganda du jour was that the ozone damage was 100% permanent and there was no possible way to do anything about it.
Not it wasn't, you retard. There was international cooperation to limit the release of CFCs. This was largely successful and it was expected that the ozone hole would gradually improve. That is exactly what has happened.
Are you sure you have finished growing up BTW? Your brain seems to have been left behind.
Re: Christian God stronger than atheists' god (Score:1)
Conservatives like simple solutions to problems because complex reasoning eludes them. It's why they can't understand things like weather is not climate and always spout off nonsense denying climate change the first time it snows anywhere.
A variation on that is the 'your initial prediction wasn't 100 percent accurate therefore the whole thing was wrong' line of reasoning, followed in short order by 'you changed your prediction after doing more research. You're falsifying data to get rich off of grant mone
Re: (Score:2)
That's nice. When I was growing up, the propaganda du jour was that the ozone damage was 100% permanent and there was no possible way to do anything about it.
No, no it was not. That is a lie, and you are a liar. I bet you think there was a scientific consensus on global cooling, too.
including "The polar ice caps will be completely melted in 15 years" and "Global cooling will turn the planet into an icicle."
Yep. Idiot or troll. Please log in so you are easier to ignore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The comic book science I was fed in middle school was about that simplistic.
But that wasn't adult level propaganda. It was perpetrated by ex-hippy teachers operating on their own limited understanding of science.
Just like now, kids were being indoctrinated.
Watch this: The number one source of stratospheric ozone is UV light hitting oxygen. Which explains why 'holes' only form in polar winters. Everywhere else there is an equilibrium process going on as ozone is steadily created and destroyed.
Someon
Re: (Score:2)
Watch this: The number one source of stratospheric ozone is UV light hitting oxygen. Which explains why 'holes' only form in polar winters. Everywhere else there is an equilibrium process going on as ozone is steadily created and destroyed.
What you say is true. But it's also true that CFCs increase the rate at which ozone is destroyed causing a lower equilibrium point unless the rate of creation goes up somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:All hot air? (Score:4, Informative)
Evidence about this is best found by looking at the fiasco that was inhaler medication for asthma patients. Albuterol inhalers had long been off patent and were produced by generics companies. With the ban the big pharma companies created a new medication with a different propellant which was granted a patent. That triggered the FDA to revoke the exception for CFC inhalers which forced every asthmatic and COPD sufferer to utilize the more expensive brand name medication rather than cheaper generics which we no longer able to be produced and sold due to the revocation of the exception.
For those that are not aware of what it's like to be asthmatic or suffer from COPD. These medications primary purpose is to reduce the inflammation that occurs in the lungs. This inflammation reduces the airflow into and out of the lungs making it more difficult to breath. The inflammation can occur in degrees from minor discomfort where you're aware of the reduced airflow to severe states where you're barely getting enough airflow to remain conscious. Asthma can and will negatively impact an individual's ability to be active in environments where the irritants that cause inflammation are located. These inhalers are a tremendous boon for patients that allows them to have a more normal lifestyle.
What elimination of the exception did was raise the cost, anywhere from a 25-100% increase, of patients in order to have a normal lifestyle or causes them to reduce their usage of inhalers limiting their ability to have a normal lifestyle. Were these costs worth it for a product that contributed no more than 0.1% of CFC usage?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Be fair, the new style pressurized tank low flow toilets flush OK.
When they don't blow up that is.
Re: (Score:2)
I bought a low flow toilet that was recommended by Consumer Reports and I'm completely satisfied with it. It hasn't plugged once in 3 years of use compared to the old full flow toilet it replaced which plugged at least once a month. Yes, it wasn't the least expensive toilet I could have got (around $250) but it was worth it. The lesson is get a good quality toilet and it will serve you well.
Re: (Score:3)
You ever hear of diffusion? Or wind? Gravity is not the only force involved.
Anyway, those chemicals have been unequivocally detected in the upper atmosphere, so they definitely got there.
See here [scientificamerican.com]
And here [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And the Chlorine and Bromine from sea water doesn't?
That's right it doesn't. It requires a special transport mechanism - like a completely chemically inert gas - to transport any chlorine or bromine up the ozonosphere, and then break up under ultraviolet exposure. The halogenated hydrocarbons that do this do not exist in nature. We created a transport mechanism where none existed naturally.
Keep asking questions, you will keep learning (as long as you heed the answers).
Re: (Score:2)
It's my understanding that most of the cfc compounds that were banned were actually heavier than air. Just how the heck did they get up in the upper atmosphere?
If the atmosphere were totally still CFCs would settle into the lower atmosphere. But the atmosphere is a rather turbulent place and it has no problem keeping keeping CFCs and other heavier than average molecules well mixed.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking your post is tongue-in-cheek but I'll respond anyway. Ozone is produced naturally in the stratosphere when an ultraviolet photon hits an O2 molecule splitting it to 2 oxygen atoms that then combine with another O2 molecule to produce O3. This is a process that has gone on for billions of years ever since there was significant oxygen in the atmosphere.