Ozone Layer Improving Faster Than Expected 325
SpaceAdmiral writes "Since the implementation of the Montreal Protocol, which limited ozone-destroying gasses like CFCs, the Earth's ozone layer has been recovering. However, new studies show that the ozone in the lower stratosphere is actually recovering faster than the Montreal Protocol alone can explain." From the article: "It's a complicated question. CFCs are not the only things that can influence the ozone layer; sunspots, volcanoes and weather also play a role. Ultraviolet rays from sunspots boost the ozone layer, while sulfurous gases emitted by some volcanoes can weaken it. Cold air in the stratosphere can either weaken or boost the ozone layer, depending on altitude and latitude. These processes and others are laid out in a review just published in the May 4th issue of Nature: 'The search for signs of recovery of the ozone layer' by Elizabeth Westhead and Signe Andersen."
Unexplained phenomenons (Score:4, Insightful)
we know shit
Re:Unexplained phenomenons (Score:2, Funny)
But why do these guys try to "heal" the ozone layer? Didn't they see "The Matrix" or Highlander III. If these guys knew shit they would destroy the ozon layer and build a black cloud around the world.
Then surrounded by thick smoke , gases and eating toxic food we will find ourselves in a medium in wich we would really evolve. Maby even in some MutantX kind of way!?
Well, all those people who have nothing better to do than mindlessly walk around in the open all day as if the sun was there to shine on
Re:Unexplained phenomena (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sorry, I must have got something wrong...
How exactly does this differ from our current situation?
Smog excluded, this is what every room with a smoker present looks like to me.
Re:Unexplained phenomenons (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unexplained phenomenons (Score:2, Interesting)
However, nearly all fish and shellfish contain traces of mercury. For most people, the risk from mercury by eating fish and shellfish is not a health concern. Yet, some fish and shellfish contain higher levels of mercury that may harm an unborn baby or young child's developing nervous system. The risks from mercury in fish and shellfish depend on the amount of fish and shellfish eaten and th
Re:Unexplained phenomenons (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Unexplained phenomenons (Score:2)
If there's one thing I certainly don't like, that's labels.
Re:Unexplained phenomenons (Score:2)
Why would you say "No" before I get a chance to answer. I've in fact researched this in great detail, and I could give you a list of food that have adverse affect on health you eat every day: fuzzy drinks an chewing gums with aspartame, snacks with sodium glutamate, preservatives, margarine (aka plastic butter) and so on and so on.
Re:Unexplained phenomenons (Score:2)
Re:Unexplained phenomenons (Score:5, Insightful)
Similarly, cyanide is obviously poisonous. But one molecule? Not so much, because your body can surely handle that. Poisons are only dangerous at various levels.
Re:Unexplained phenomenons (Score:2)
Re:Unexplained phenomenons (Score:2)
From where did you get this idea that "toxic" means "all who consume a portion will instantly explode into flames"? Wherever you got it, stop listening to them.
Re:Unexplained phenomenons (Score:2)
Indeed
Re:Unexplained phenomenons (Score:2)
Re:Unexplained phenomenons (Score:2)
Re:Unexplained phenomenons (Score:2)
Re:Unexplained phenomenons (Score:2)
I did, and I must have missed the part where soy lecithin is toxic to anyone who's not allergic to soy. Could you point it out? It talks a lot about the benefits of it, but I didn't notice anything about toxicity.
And the article about high fructose corn syrup only damned the fructose itself, not the HFCS. (Quote: Fruit juices should be strictly avoided--they are very high in fructose--but so should anything with HFCS.) Unless you are against genetically modified foods (which I'v
Re:Unexplained phenomenons (Score:2)
The arguement against GM foods is not that they are simply "unhealthy", but that they are a not-fully-understood, and perhaps unwelcome addition to the biodiversity of Earth.
I for one, do not want commercially-driven science project mingling with my maize - gift from god.
I also do not want foodstuffs to contain genetic information from such diverse organisms as bacteria, nor for goats to
Re:Unexplained phenomenons (Score:2)
Why? This exact technology has already saved millions of lives, thanks to mass production of insulin. You'd rather we forego such advances simply because they make you uncomfortable?
Re:Billy's Tarantula (Score:3, Informative)
Hint: this has been the case since we started killing other animals for food and started growing our own crops. GM foods change this not one bit.
Neon fish loose in the wild?
Which will die off rapidly because they aren't fit to survive in the wild, being more noticable to predators.
Crafted strains of corn conta
Re:Unexplained phenomenons (Score:4, Interesting)
Most of the arguments I've heard against GM are based on the idea that it's just a creepy and icky thing to think about. Personally, I also think that eating bugs is creepy and icky to think about, but people do that all over the world.
Re:Unexplained phenomenons (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Unexplained phenomenons (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I thought it was explained? (Score:2)
You know... We don't use CFC in our hair spray, styrofoam, air conditioners, and so on anymore.
Considering we've cut back so much... Wouldn't you think that would explain the ozone recovering?
That are we have more pirates these days.
Re:I thought it was explained? (Score:2)
Try 25% [doe.gov]. And that figure's from the Bush DOE. I'll leave how that impacts your argument as an exercise.
Re:I thought it was explained? (Score:2)
So its pirates then?
Re:Unexplained phenomenons (Score:2)
When a chemical flagged as poisonous by the state based on solid scientific research is later flagged as "ok to eat and drink every day" because of corporate pressure, I don't call it trial and error.
Funny thing is this happens for a lot of what we use, eat, live in in the present days. It's called greed dude.
Re:Unexplained phenomenons (Score:2)
Except if the symptoms are commonly misidagnosed and hardly traced back to the original cause. Really the issue is highly complicated, and getting kinda OT.
science wrong so science wins (Score:2, Insightful)
Look - the chance of everything changing EXACTLY as predicted (by anyone) is almost nil. so headlines will always read:
XXXX is going BETTER/WORSE than predicted.
Really - nothing to see here - please keep
Re:science wrong so science wins (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of the problem with this system is that things like the Montreal Protocol are not science. It aims to solve a problem that might exist with remedies that might fix it. Note the usage of the world "explains" instead of "predicts". Most scientific theories are like economics: they can 'explain' plenty, but they can't really predict anything. Ultimately, all this talk about the weather is not science because we can't do experiments. There is simply no way to do scientific experiments with the global climate, and so theories about it don't quite make it all the way.
Using such theories to make worldwide policy is not exactly scientific when there is no actual evidence they have the verified power of prediction.
Re:science wrong so science wins (Score:2)
Sorry, I meant to say scientific theories about the weather, not all theories. There's a reason weathermen have such a bad track record =) Quantum mechanics is quite good, however, in predicting things successfully
Re:science wrong so science wins (Score:4, Insightful)
And the "verification" is the same as it would be for a laboratory model: the model needs to explain the extant data, whether laboratory-produced or gathered from the field. Using models to make policy based on field-gathered data is substantially more "scientific" than using wishful thinking based on economic self-interest.
Re:science wrong so science wins (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really relevant what you (or I) think is a "scientific posture". This appears to be a conflation on your part of two definitions of the word science.
Webster's:
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systema
Re:science wrong so science wins (Score:4, Insightful)
Did you read your own post?
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (emphasis mine)
Observation is just as valid a method of getting information as is experimentation; it just takes longer and you have to be more careful to gather sufficient data. Climatology and meteorology, like geology/geophysics/geochemistry, astronomy/astrophysics, and large sections of biology including all of paleontology and, at the opposite end of the temporal scale, most of epidemiology, rely largely on observation, testing specific hypotheses with experimentation when possible (which, these days, is more often than you might think.) Are you seriously denying that all of these are sciences?
Re:science wrong so science wins (Score:2)
Re:science wrong so science wins (Score:4, Insightful)
This is something that is studied by scientists in a scientific (ie critical and fact based) manner, and then considered and debated by other scientists in the field of study. And you think it's not science?
You can't experiment on the planet as a whole, but
- measure the levels of ozone and see a reduction
- measure the levels of CFC output and see an increase
- determine through experiments (or simple chemical knowledge) that CFCs reaction with ozone
and deduce that the increased levels of CFC are decreasing levels of ozone. That's science, through and through.
Re:science wrong so science wins (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words, it's not so simple.
Re:science wrong so science wins (Score:2, Insightful)
If you insist, we can say that it isn't science, but are you proposing that doing nothing would have been better than the Montreal protocol? Or are you just pissing in a can because science enjoys a slig
Re:science wrong so science wins (Score:2)
Re:science wrong so science wins (Score:2)
Take biomedicine. A scientist looks at symptoms and deduce's what is probably going on (at either a cellular, DNA or molecular level), and then develops a drug which will probably treat it.
There is no complete definate, BECAUSE IT'S SCIENCE!
However, the science behind the Montreal Treaty (as with the Kyoto Treaty) is far more indepth and independantly verifiyed than any drug in history (except maybe asprin and alcohol)!
Re:science wrong so science wins (Score:3, Funny)
Re:science wrong so science wins (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:science wrong so science wins (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that many people feel upset or offended that science naturally dissociates itself from such consequences.
Re:science wrong so science wins (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah - true - there are spoilt children everywhere. I often hear them shouting "it's not fair ... but you PROMISED" when things don't go as planned & expected. and in discussions like this, the "children" are over 20 who should know better
all science can do is make predictions based on current knowledge, known facts, and best hypothesis. If "many people" can't accept that ... well what can you do?
Re:science wrong so science wins (Score:2)
Science tries to create prediction models based on observed data. The more chaotic an observed system is (and the more parameters you have to track), the more difficult it becomes to create a correct model.
This is the reason why there are so much debate around climate science. Both weather and climate are very chaotic systems, which makes it very difficult to create good models. There are just too many parameters involved.
Gravity on the other
The Green Brigade will be foaming at the mouth (Score:4, Interesting)
People who trot out wildly extrapolated results from global warming simulations ("OMG NY will under water by 2100!") sound to me like the same people who predicted city-sized computers back in the 50s because there was no way their simulations could have predicted microelectronics.
Climate is a complex system with many variables, human output being only one of them. Frankly, I've always held the greens would have a much better case if they focused on quality-of-life improvements brought about by cleaner air than by trying to create artificial energy regulations in the name of global warming (which *is* happening, but it doesn't necessarily follow that humans are the sole factor).
But hey, there's a reason green and left politics go together-- sticking it to big industry is a good way of sticking it to the Man.
Re:The Green Brigade will be foaming at the mouth (Score:2)
It's the same deal with global warming. It is happening, that has never been questioned. The question is simply how much of a role humans play, no one factor plays a sole role in it but humans certainly do have the power to affect it.
Re:The Green Brigade will be foaming at the mouth (Score:2)
You do bring up a good point and a common misconception that energy conservation has to harm an admittedly great lifestyle which I do enjoy. The U.S. consumes so much power because they can and this in no way means that we have to. Hydrogen and electric cars have been around a while and could be given broad
Re:The Green Brigade will be foaming at the mouth (Score:2)
Re:The Green Brigade will be foaming at the mouth (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, but how do you define caution? To the extent that human activity can be directly associated with measurable, specific climate factors... and to the extent that specific changes in regulatory roles or carbon bartering, etc. will have some identifiable outcome, you've got something to talk about. But since there's absolutely no way to be that specific, we have to look at specific, economy-wounding proposals with a wary eye. Why? Because the only thing that will reduce emissions is better technology and the huge, culture-wide adoption of same.
And the only way that gets done is in the presence of a thriving economy that has the largess to invest in such things, and families with enough income to do things like build more efficient houses and take a net loss for driving a hybrid, etc. When you tax the bejesus out of people, or limit the high-tech economies most able to actually spend billions of dollars on researching/developing bio-fuels and other marginal improvements, you slow, rather than accelerate the cure for our part (such as it is) of the warming trend. But when the same protocols that would damage the most innovative economies allow the dirtiest (in terms of emissions and rapid growth thereof) economies (say, China, or India) to just blast away as if it were 100 years ago when no one knew any better... well, that's not "erring on the side of caution."
If you crush the profitable economies even as they are already leading the way to more efficient energy use... you're going to set back the progress more than by any other means.
Re:The Green Brigade will be foaming at the mouth (Score:4, Insightful)
Global cooling, resulting in a new Ice Age (never mind that we haven't yet finished leaving the last one)
Coastal cities flooded by 2000
Ozone layer destroyed by 1990
Stopping forest fires is the most important way to protect our forests
Starting forest fires is the most important way to protect our forests
No edible fish by 1985
No potable water by 2000
World War III (global thermonuclear war, of course) by 2000
Can't wait to see what the next doomsday scenario will be. More fun than riding a rollercoaster.
Re:The Green Brigade will be foaming at the mouth (Score:2)
Thanks HP (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Thanks HP (Score:2)
The hole in the Ozone Layer != Global warming
Does this mean (Score:3, Funny)
Photocopier Fumes (Score:4, Funny)
My boss says it's a waste of time and money though. He doesn't give a shit about the enviroment I guess.
Global warming (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeche
Re:Global warming (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Global warming (Score:2, Insightful)
Cool! (Score:2)
Now seriously, don't let anyone ignore one of the sentences in the article:
Re:Cool! (Score:2)
I'm not arguing that it was. I'm asking if there is any way to verify whether it was. Anybody?
Can you dumb it down a little more please? (Score:2, Insightful)
Thanks NASA, I'm confused now. Lets not slap the public with too much cold hard science at once. A diagram of the earth wearing sunglasses might help me understand how that can help it prevent skin cancer and other maladies. My two year can think of a better opener -- "I've got new shoes" seems to be slightly more i
Nooooo! (Score:2)
Confusing article (Score:2)
"While the ozone hole over Antarctica continues to open wide, the ozone layer around the rest of the planet seems to be on the mend."
OK, so the ozone hole over Antarctica "continues to open wide", and you're telling me that the ozoner layer is improving? WTF? O.o
Explained by the nature of Ozone's creation? (Score:2)
Oxygen can be broken by UV, but splitting it mixes a lot of free O atoms with the existing O2, encouraging Ozone production. Ozone blocks UV, and Ozone lifts itself slowly to our upper atmosphere, protecting the Oxygen (and us) below. So long as there's sufficient Oxygen available to feed this process, you can view this as a self-maintaining cycle, where depleted Ozone will be (slowly) responded to
So this means (Score:2)
Re:They got it wrong from the beginning (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They got it wrong from the beginning (Score:2)
Re:They got it wrong from the beginning (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They got it wrong from the beginning (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course this brain-dead theory has about as much basis in actual science as yours. If you don't believe the measurements indicating that the ozone hole was increasing (back when it was) why do you believe the measurements now that it is decreasing?
Re:They got it wrong from the beginning (Score:2)
As you said, convenience; a hole that we have to take steps to fix is inconvenient, hence the disbelieve. A hole that is now closing faster than expected is very convenient, hence the belief.
You see the same sort of thing in all sorts of situations; people are naturally predisposed to believe the things that agree with the beliefs they already h
the scale of things (Score:3, Insightful)
So yeah, the planet is ridiculously big, and it's unimaginably old. But there are a lot of us, a
Re:the scale of things (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that as humans we tend to think about things in relation to our own scale. If we live in a city, we look around us at the density and activity of other humans and extrapolate that as the norm. We forget that the majority of the earth's surface [wikipedia.org] is undeveloped. Also, 6 billion people sounds like a lot of people, but they would al
Re:They got it wrong from the beginning (Score:5, Informative)
It's not like CFCs are fine now according to the article,
And later in the same article:
Secondly, the Montreal Protocol was about the ozone depletion in other areas like Northern Europe and Canada, not just the hole over Antactica.
If one wants to argue that ozone depletion was nothing to worry about or some kind of myth, one needs to refer to sources beyond this article since that's not what it says.
Re:Healing of the ozone layer? (Score:2, Insightful)
And there's a lot more evidence pointing toward the idea that we *are* harming it than evidence that we *aren't*.
People want undeniable "proof" because the idea that we are harming it is so controversial, and otherwise they aren't willing to accept it. If this is the case, then like any other controversi
Re:Healing of the ozone layer? (Score:3, Informative)
The ozone layer was depleted more severely than known natural processes could account for. This is also pretty much fact.
Beyond that, it's basically an educated guess as to which of the following is more likely-
Are there ozone depleting natural reactions we are completely unaware are even possible?
Are the known natural processes happening with greater fr
Re:Doesn't ANYBODY remember the 80s? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Doesn't ANYBODY remember the 80s? (Score:3, Interesting)
Must be the better methods of detecting skin cancer and the wider access to medical services over time. If more people are being examined, more conditions will be found.
Re:Doesn't ANYBODY remember the 80s? (Score:2)
I went to one last year where all those questions were addressed.
Re:Doesn't ANYBODY remember the 80s? (Score:2)
All this, just to satisfy some inner glee you have at causing a short and wasteful disturban
Re:Doesn't ANYBODY remember the 80s? (Score:2)
Re:Doesn't ANYBODY remember the 80s? (Score:2)
And you think the GP is confused - geez . . .
You were wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
Because the ozone hole and global warming are two totally separate phenomena. They are both caused by pollution, but different kinds of pollution-- in simple terms, the ozone hole is caused by CFCs, global warming is caused by greenhouse gases. In the 80s, we stopped using CFCs, and since CFCs take a few decades to fall out of the atmosphere, now that a few decades have passed the ozone hole is starting to get better. In the 80s we did not stop our emission of greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide), so global climate change / global warming is still getting worse.
Of course, carbon dioxide takes longer to fall out of the atmosphere than CFCs, so even if we entirely ceased carbon dioxide emissions tomorrow (which we probably couldn't even if we really wanted to without bringing civilization to its knees) we shouldn't expect to see things returning to normal for maybe a couple hundreds of years. But at least we could stop making things worse.
Repairing the ozone hole is not helping global warming for the same reason that if your computer's power supply is on fire, you cannot fix this by reinstalling Windows. If you thought that repairing the ozone hole would stop global warming, it is because you are confused.
Re:You were wrong. (Score:2)
China is still producing, using, and venting vast amounts of CFCs today.
http://www.chinadevelopmentbrief.com/node/371 [chinadevel...tbrief.com]
other producers may also exist, see the somewhat out of date list at greenpeace.
http://archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/chlorine/5chlo r.html [greenpeace.org]
Re:Last I checked... (Score:2, Troll)
No, you are confused.
However what you've said is fascinating. You heard about the ozone hole and global warming at the same time so you've incorrectly held this belief that they are strongly related. The Bush government used a similar trick to sway the public into thinking 9/11 justified a war in Iraq; a poll found approximately 70% of US citizens believe that Saddam was involved in the [usatoday.com]
Re:Last I checked... (Score:2)
I think I post for us all when I say: "YOU'RE A RETARD".
Re:This brought to you by... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This brought to you by... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This brought to you by... (Score:2)
Anyways, I'm agreeing with you sumery. We didn't even have the science to fully understand the ozone layere when those restrictions were being made. We couldn't and still cannot determin the rate of deteriation or improvment cause by man and instead offer situations that would increase global warming.
I suppose this, The increase in the Ozone layer is caused by what is causing global warming. It is changing the weather patterns on different plannets too. It is
Re:This brought to you by... (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't believe the number of science deniers out there. So many people are agreeing with you, but it's obvious they did not read the article. The article mention that the ozone above 18 km is recovering and follows the pattern predicted by scientific research.
The portion just below 18km is showing recovery above that predicted research results. If you just pay attention to the graph, that area below 18km looks like an anomoly and it's not even a dramatic concentrati
Re:This brought to you by... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, it's those same people who insist that poverty [heritage.org] still exists in the U.S. and that the holocaust happened [biblebelievers.org.au]. Damn liberals even say that improving our energy efficiency while reducing greenhouse gasses will improve our economy. We all know that God controls the climate directly and that the rest of those things are liberal lies.
The world can take a
Re:This brought to you by... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:This brought to you by... (Score:2)
Which part of that d
More important than money (Score:3, Interesting)
Science gets a special place in making those decisions. If it says, "The sky is going to fall if you don't do this, no matter what it costs", they (we, actually; I'm a scientist) merit special attention. People stopped using CFCs on scientists' say-so, for an ozone hole most people never noticed.
That means that they have to be right. Scientists get that pass because they're so often right. When they're wrong, especially on big stuff, it chips away at that
Re:Duh..... (Score:2)
Re:Ozone hole is bad science. The thinning is natu (Score:2)
Indeed, the 2005 ozone hole was one of the biggest ever, spanning 24 million sq km in area, nearly the size of North America.
I guess your theory is wrong.
Re:Al Gore is going to be pissed! (Score:2)
My God, the next thing you will read is that the ice is getting thicker in Antarctica and Greenland.
Congratulations, you fail Reading 101. Please return to elementary school. From TFA you cite:
Re:Al Gore is going to be pissed! (Score:2)
Thanks for confirming!
wrong issue (Score:3, Informative)
Greenhouse effect comes from CO2 and H2O emissions.
The ozone hole thing was kind of crappy science anyway, when the sensors were created to look at the ozone layer, the hole was already there. There's no evidence it wasn't supposed to be there. And my understanding is it shrunk in Winter 2004-2005 versus Winter 2003-2004.
Plus, the angle the light hits the atmosphere there at the pole is so low that the UV is filtered out anyway, without the need for a thick UV layer (think of how
Stop watching Fox (Score:2)