×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Signs of Ozone Layer Recovery Detected

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the now-we-can-officially-stop-caring dept.

Earth 363

polar red writes "22 years of banning CFCs is starting to pay off. Researchers have finally been able to measure a reduction in size of the ozone layer hole, after finding the source of its fluctuations. 'Salby's results reveal a fast decline in ozone levels until the late 1990s, then a slow rebound that closely matches what theoretical calculations had predicted, says David Karoly, a climate scientist at the University of Melbourne, Australia. "It is the sort of result that was expected, but is the first to provide detection of an increase in Antarctic ozone levels," he says.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

363 comments

Climate Change Deniers (3, Insightful)

Drake42 (4074) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196102)

Why is it that the scientists can detect an ozone hole, provide a fix, show that the fix solved the problem, and then be LOUDLY IGNORED by the liars in congress.

Oh. The CFL manufacturers had less money than the oil people. Sorry. I forgot...

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1, Insightful)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196150)

It is that boring old argument about correlation != causality.

I'm not arguing that reducing CFCs and other emissions is a bad thing, but when emotions and political leanings enter the argument it is far to often to emerge wrong, not matter how right one may be.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (5, Insightful)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196240)

You know, when there is a physical mechanism connecting two phenomena AND a correlation between them, that correlation != causation thing is simply, well, bullshit.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196390)

I think the problem with the correlation != causation thing that is trotted out without fail is that people mistake it for correlation does not imply causation.

I'm no logician so feel free to rephrase that, but the essence is that just because correlation doesn't mean causation all the time doesn't suggest that correlation doesn't mean causation some of the time.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196448)

The correct form would probably be "correlation does not necessitate causation", while, on the other hand, causation necessitates correlation.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196554)

Actually, that's exactly the point –causation implies correlation; and equality is equivalent to bi-implication, therefore the statement reduces to correlation does not imply correlation.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196764)

It's "correlation does not imply causation."
And it's 100% correct.

People who short hand it to != are just idiots more interested in letting people know the are 'leet' then actually understanding something.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196876)

Of course it is correct - in the absence of other evidence. The implication is done by providing the mechanism. So may I suggest the corollary "In the presence of a physically connecting mechanism between two phenomena, correlation does imply causation"?

Re:Climate Change Deniers (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196860)

when emotions and political leanings enter the argument it is far to often to emerge wrong, not matter how right one may be.

You forgot economic interests. The problem with the climate change debate is NOT that there is too much emotion in it, it's that there is too much MONEY in pretending it's not real. The oil and coal industries throwing FUD against preventing climate change is precisely the problem with the debate.

I suppose there would still be people who prefer to distrust scientists and or disreguard "treehuggers" just as there were/are still people who pretended cigarettes were perfectly healthy long after the tobacco industry stopped fooling people. Still, I think if it weren't for the lies, the debate would have been HOW to reduce carbon emissions ten years ago, not whether we should. We likely could have done it more gradually and cheaper, and had less damage done, than what we're facing now.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (4, Interesting)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196152)

The CFL manufacturers had less money than the oil people. Sorry. I forgot...

Didn't the 'ozone hole' only become an OH MY GOD WE'RE GOING TO DIE problem after the patent on CFCs in air conditioning expired?

Re:Climate Change Deniers (0, Flamebait)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196216)

Are you going for the "stupidest post in slashdot history" achievment with that? And who the heck modded that interesting,please?

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36196724)

The GP is perfectly correct.

You might want to read the peer reviewed literature on how ozone "holes" fluctuate with solar activity and not human made CFCs as well. Yes, they exist.

Hugged a tree lately?

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1, Informative)

mangu (126918) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196204)

Why is it that the scientists can detect an ozone hole, provide a fix, show that the fix solved the problem, and then be LOUDLY IGNORED by the liars in congress.

Oh. The CFL manufacturers had less money than the oil people. Sorry. I forgot...

What has one thing to do with the other?

The ozone layer hole was caused by the use of chloro-fluoro-carbon gases that decompose the O3 molecules in the stratosphere.

Global warming is caused by the emission of gases, mostly CO2, that trap infrared radiation in the lower atmosphere.

The ozone layer problem was solved by substituting the CFC gases for other less harmful gases.

Solving the global warming problem is more difficult because it's difficult to replace fuels that generate CO2 with other forms of energy production without affecting some very large corporations. These corporations have created an effective propaganda effort against the idea that global warming exists.

Given enough money, you can fool a lot of people for some time.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (3, Interesting)

tibit (1762298) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196254)

Global warming is caused by the emission of gases, mostly CO2, but also CFC replacements that are 1000s of times more potent than CO2.

Fixed that for ya. Apparently Nature doesn't provide free lunches :(

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1)

marnues (906739) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196356)

The ozone disappearing was a much more pressing and obvious issue than global warming. I understand that we replaced one problem with another, but that's engineering. We went with the issue that would give us more time to solve. Besides, it would have been an issue anyway.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (0, Troll)

mangu (126918) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196892)

The ozone disappearing was a much more pressing and obvious issue than global warming.

Yeah, right. Australians having to use extra sunblock in early spring is a much more pressing issue than droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, everywhere, right?

See, I did say that the fossil fuel industry invests a lot in propaganda. You're buying it.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36196508)

Global warming is caused by the emission of gases, mostly CO2, but also CFC replacements that are 1000s of times more potent than CO2.

While that may or may not be true, [sciencemag.org] the amount of CFC replacements is hundreds of thousands of times less than the amount of serious green-house gases. The ozone layer itself is only composed of the equivalent of 2 centimeters worth of ozone planet-wide. It doesn't take much CFCs to mess that up.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1)

spun (1352) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196530)

Global warming is caused by the emission of gases, mostly CO2, but also CFC replacements that are 1000s of times more potent than CO2.

Fixed that for ya. Apparently Nature doesn't provide free lunches :(

Oh no, Nature is charging for lunch now? Does she accept credit cards? Does "lunch" include the things necessary to create lunch, like the sun? Do I have to pay for the sun now?!? That sounds expensive.

Numbers please! (3, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196854)

Global warming is caused by the emission of gases, mostly CO2, but also CFC replacements that are 1000s of times more potent than CO2.

Fixed that for ya. Apparently Nature doesn't provide free lunches :(

No, you fixed nothing, you just failed to take into account numbers.

CO2 isn't harmful just because it's a global warming gas. It's so harmful because it's emitted in several orders of magnitude more than other gases.

Another gas may be 1000 times more potent, but if only a billionth as much as CO2 is being emitted, then so what?

Re:Climate Change Deniers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36196304)

What has one thing to do with the other?

And then ...

These corporations have created an effective propaganda effort against the idea that global warming exists.

Given enough money, you can fool a lot of people for some time.

Which was his entire point. Geeze!

AND I'd like to add that it is also resistance from the population in general. Many people don't want to give up their internal combustion engines - that's what it's going to take to clean up the air, solve our oil dependency problems and pretty much do nothing about Global Warming because everything we do will be more than nullified by China, India, Indonesia, and all of the billions of people who are going to burn their coal, petroleum, and everything else they can.

We're pretty much fucked.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1)

anyGould (1295481) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196426)

AND I'd like to add that it is also resistance from the population in general. Many people don't want to give up their internal combustion engines - that's what it's going to take to clean up the air, solve our oil dependency problems and pretty much do nothing about Global Warming because everything we do will be more than nullified by China, India, Indonesia, and all of the billions of people who are going to burn their coal, petroleum, and everything else they can.

We're pretty much fucked.

No, we just need a reasonable alternative to internal combustion engines. And by "reasonable", I mean "doesn't require people to completely rework their lifestyle into an inferior version".

I can't get to my place of employment without an internal combustion engine. There's no public transit to the area. It's in the middle of an industrial park filled with semis and heavy equipment, so riding a bike would be suicidal (not to mention a three-hour trip one-way, according to Google). Give me a way to do that without an IC engine, and I will happily take you up on it.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1)

anyGould (1295481) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196458)

Slight edit: clicked the wrong button in Google, so my bike time is only one hour (walking is three).

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196512)

Well, for the usual commute, electric cars should do just fine. The only infrastructure update you would probably need are charging ports at all parking lots at your workplace and your home. That should take care of 90% of commutes. The longer-term solution would be rethinking city planning, which way too often is completely focused on cars. I live in a European city which mostly did it right. Living in the city, half an hour commute with public transit and yet, still lots of green areas around my home, so it is not at all some urban wasteland.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1)

Widowwolf (779548) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196636)

Which you do realize where most of that energy comes from right..No it would not solve most of the problems..When we get 100% of our energy through Other then coal means..thats when the problems will be mostly solved

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196698)

Naturally that is part of the solution - there is nothing fundamentally impossible about that, though. You just gotta start at some point. Why not start with implementing an electric infrastructure that allows city traffic to go mostly electric. Apart from climate problems, you get the smog shit out of the way, even if you go with coal plants for now - the filtering is way simpler there. Then you can shift to renewables without changing your traffic infrastructure. 2-3 decades, and it can be done without pain.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1)

Widowwolf (779548) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196760)

Except cities who are have to have rolling blackouts..Elderly be damned, you dont need no stinking AC's...We need to power our vehicles

Re:Climate Change Deniers (2)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196808)

Maybe your infrastructure just sucks? I live in the first world, personally. In particular, in a country that hasn't let its grid go to shit for some decades. All I see is overcapacities. But you don't really want to argue about the possibility of changing the status quo, you are absolutely convinced that it should not be changed, therefor it CANNOT be changed. When your argument boils down to "electrification of commuter traffic will kill the elderly", well, then you'd better admit that you lost, before you dig yourself deeper into the bullshit.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1)

Widowwolf (779548) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196950)

No I am just simply stating that there needs to be overhauls first before we attempt to make every car plugin--I happen to live in the first world, I live in Sacramento California, the Capital of the eighth largest economy in the world...But governments need to do more about making sure there is enough electricity first without cars plugging in before the try to overhaul automobiles. Maybe some more Nuclear Plants in Nevada or more regulation about energy costs.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#36197006)

Of course we will need to make overhauls - what are we even arguing about here? After all, it's not like every IC engine will be magically converted into electric overnight. The infrastructure change is not impossible, and not even fundamental. To say it can't work is like saying "We would have to exchange every stable for a gas station to get rid of horse buggies. This will never work" - well, it worked, on the timescale of two to three decades. On the same timescale the next transition can and will work.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1)

vbraga (228124) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196896)

The only infrastructure update you would probably need are charging ports at all parking lots at your workplace and your home.

What? "Only"? This also means upgrading building infrastructure for all buildings (workspace and homes), then upgrade the electrical distribution grid (both "last mile" and long distance) to cope with the increased demand. Also, you have to generate energy for all cars, which probably means more thermoelectric, nuclear or hydro plants since this in an increase in base load where you usually can't use alternative energy solutions like solar or wind.

It's not that simple.

I would like to point it out also that European cities are usually small by New World or Asian standards. If you take a look at here [wikipedia.org] only London make it to the list. Take a trip to São Paulo someday and go take the subway in the rush hour to see what public transport looks like in a crowded, high density city. It's not enjoyable and you're not going to make the middle/upper classes to use it even if it means a shorter commute.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36196248)

There is a simple and easily explained mechanism by which CFC's deplete ozone. Likewise, it is easily shown how ozone in the upper atmosphere is necessary to stop us being dead.

Climate change, on the other hand, is complicated. Fuck, it took long enough to get CFC's banned. If our release of carbons is going to change our climate for the wirst you can be sure you'll be long dead before enough people believe it to care.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196288)

How is climate change complicated? You increase the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and the planet warms. That's about as complicated as you put a blanket over you and you keep warm. Both mechanisms decrease the heat radiated away. Over 100 years ago, Arrhenius [wikipedia.org] gave estimates of global warming that closely match the latest observations. It's not complicated at all.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196324)

The only thing that makes it complicated is the fact that you have to wade through layers upon layers of obfuscation produced by the business-as-usual propaganda machine.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (0)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196870)

Well, let's add PDO and ENSO to that. Plus solar variations and cosmic rays. Oh, and clouds. Then the biosphere, which actually grows more with higher concentrations of CO2. Don't forget that the imaginary "average global temperature" doesn't tell you anything about its specific distribution, which is what *really* matters.

If it was as simple as you say, the past 15 years would have resulted in increasing temps, along with increasing CO2. As it stands, we've seen a stall in any statistically significant increase. So even if your theory is right (which, of course, you haven't stated in a falsifiable way), it's at *least* complicated enough to stay stable for 15 years while CO2 rises.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196910)

How is climate change complicated?

Acording to the numerous news reports and Al Gore movies, Global Warming causes:

1. An increase in temperature.
2. A decrease in temperature.
3. An increase in the hurricane frequency.
4. A decrease in the hurricane frequency.
5. More Earthquakes.
6. Fewer earthquakes.
7. A decrease in precipitation.
8. A increase in precipitation. ...

Ok, now try to prove that Global Warming doesn't exist. You can't, because if anything happens, or doesn't happen, it's bercause of Globsal Warming.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1)

onkelonkel (560274) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196338)

It took 50 years from the first Surgeon General's report on the dangers of smoking till smoking was banned here in all workplaces.

1. These kinds of massive changes take time.
2. Despite all the lobbying and all the PR spin and all the PAC donations and all the flat out fucking lies spouted by the tobacco industry, in the end they lost. Per capita smoking is now about 1/3 of the peak amount and trending downward.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (3, Informative)

tibit (1762298) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196250)

Now be careful. The CFC replacements are potent greenhouse gases [acs.org]. Potent as in 3 orders of magnitude worse than CO2. Is it better to die of skin cancer, or of hunger due to crop failures due to draught due to raising global temperature? I don't know...

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196796)

Ozone was a more pressing issue. And guite frankly, C02 from fossile fuel emission are such a large part of the problem, the chemicals now used to replace CFC is a drop in the bucket.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36196842)

Now be careful. The CFC replacements are potent greenhouse gases. Potent as in 3 orders of magnitude worse than CO2. Is it better to die of skin cancer, or of hunger due to crop failures due to draught due to raising global temperature? I don't know...

I have extensive vitiligo, which - according to my dermatologist - practically ensures that I won't get skin cancer. Bring CFC gasses back, I say!

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196866)

First, some ozone-depleting compounds are even worse. For example, halons not only destroy the ozone layer but are also among the top global warming agents (by the virtue of their chemical unreactivity).

Second, the total amount of emitted CFC-replacement gases is not large, so we can generally ignore it for now.

Third, there are CFC replacement with less GW potential.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196904)

The amount of CFC released into the atmosphere is insignificant against the sheer volume of CO2 (millions of tons of gas versus probably less than a ton of CFC). In addition Methane is even more potent than CFC's (IIRC it is 10 times more effective at trapping heat than CO2) and is an unregulated emission just like CO2. You could do more to stop global climate change by making natural gas illegal than you would ever cause by outlawing CFC's. In fact you probably emit personally more Methane through intestinal gases than the CFC that is released due to your commercial activity (AC use, etc).

In addition they are in a continual cycle of improvement in refrigerants now. The original badboy CFC was Freon R-12, it was replaced by R-22, which 2 years ago was replaced by R-410A (there are numerous steps in there), most cars right now use R-134A, the AC unit I just replaced uses 410A and the HVAC tech said that's standard now. Each revision improves the coolant properties along with eliminating the negative effects. R-12 was banned in the 90's, R-22 is also now banned. I have no doubt in a dozen years R-134A will be banned and a dozen after than R-410A might be as well. This doesn't even count the regulations in the US that make it illegal to vent CFC's and require that they be recovered under some rather nasty fines. When the HVAC was replaced the tech spent a good 15 minutes draining every drop of CFC from the old unit.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36196274)

Because it's a fucking lie. Only a retard would believe that cfcs released mainly in the Eastern US and Europe would somehow congregate over the South Pole. The thinness of the ozone layer over the poles is natural, and comes from the fact that ozone is naturally unstable. The ozone layer has always thinned over the poles during winter, people just didn't notice it until the latter part of last century. A brief increase in the thickness is just a random fluctuation, not proof that the lies are somehow true.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (2)

Mascot (120795) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196278)

I seem to recall there being scientists back then arguing "CFC or no CFC, this will fix itself given a few decades, no reason to panic". By your logic, should we now believe whatever those people state?

The point I'm trying to make, as others have: correlation != causality.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1, Funny)

marnues (906739) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196418)

I'm going to admit that my understanding of the situation is also based on me "recall[ing] there being scientists" saying certain things, one of which is that the ozone hole was directly caused by massive CFC usage. That directly refutes you and is the status quo belief. You are the one with the burden of proof.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196454)

Yes, without any proposed mechanism of causality, a correlation is just a correlation and does not imply causality. But with CFCs and the ozone layer, there is a mechanism of causality. CFCs catalyze the reaction of ozone molecules breaking up into oxygen molecules.

Re:Climate alarmists (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36196476)

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/ozone-hole-gone/

Maybe not.
The natural cycle of the ozone extent may have just shifted to the increasing phase of the cycle.

Maybe, like "global warming" it was just a power grab for commercial reasons.
We have no long term data on the ozone hole, it could have been waxing and waning for millennia.

The purported physics and chemistry of CFCs may have seemed plausible (like the idea that CO2 traps heat), but they real system may be too complex for such simple models. C02 doubling increases temperatures only a degree or so, and any scare scenarios are based on controversial and unproven feed back mechanisms. Some of which may be negative according to some recent research.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196386)

The fact that you even use 'oil people' in a statement and believe that all deniers are in that group shows just how much bias, and the methods you use to stifle debate on the issue. I'd be ashamed to use use that as an argument. But since many in the pro-AGW use this regularly, I'll just lump you as a religious nutbag. Your methods are similar.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196914)

You're right, there are also religious nut jobs that believe that God won't allow any flooding because the Bible doesn't foresee ones. And the libertarians that are opposed to any and all regulations on the basis of them being entitled to do whatever they like so long as there isn't an indisputable conflict with other people's rights. And then don't forget the people who don't actually have any education on the matter who are skeptics mainly because Fox News tells them to be afraid of the vast liberal conspiracy to take away their rights.

Funny... (1)

publiclurker (952615) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196960)

your willingness to whore for the deniers shows you to be devoid of any shame. Care to try another excuse to avoid accepting responsibility?

Re:Climate Change Deniers (5, Insightful)

Solandri (704621) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196460)

It's because most of the evidence supporting global warming thus far is comprised of correlation studies. As I like to say, a good correlation paper can win you a high school science fair. A good causation paper can win you the Nobel prize. Which is precisely what happened with ozone depletion [wikipedia.org]. A trio of scientists came up with an elegant, predictive, and empirically accurate mechanism to explain exactly how ozone depletion was occurring, and won the Nobel prize in Chemistry for it.

Come up with a comprehensive, predictive, and empirically accurate model for climate change, and you will probably win the Nobel prize (in something like physics, not a trophy prize like peace) and simultaneously convince the world's government that they must act. The problem with correlation studies is that they're always open to dispute since you never identify or test the actual mechanism causing the problem. That's what happened with cigarettes - for decades the medical community had tons of correlation studies saying that smoking was bad. But the government restrictions and bans didn't come about until medical researchers began to identify and confirm the mechanisms by which smoking was causing cancer.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (4, Informative)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196532)

The causation paper for climate change would win you zilch at all, since the basic mechanism has been published by Arrhenius about 130 years ago. All the open questions are more in the realm of systems theory, not in the realm of basic mechanisms.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (0)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196888)

Pray tell, how did Arrhenius state his theory of causation in a falsifiable hypothesis?

If he didn't state it, how would *you* state it?

Re:Climate Change Deniers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36196556)

Yea, like Al Gore got a Nobel for his error riddled propaganda film !

Re:Climate Change Deniers (5, Informative)

cryptolemur (1247988) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196674)

Oddly enough climate change is something that comes out of the physics models when you put in what we understand of the climate. It has nothing to do with correlation, it's pure mechanical causation. As it happens, the observations do confirm the model.

And it also happens, that the exact same people who were arguing against CFC -> Ozone hole causation and smoking -> lung cancer causation started arguing against climate change. They obviously can fool some of the people all of the time.

Oh, and the actual mechanism of how smoking causes lung cancer was partly revealed a few year back, but is still not completely understood.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (2)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196728)

As for the smoking -> cancer mechanism, large parts of it are known for decades. Polycyclic aromates in the smoke are potent intercalators, which put themselves between basepairs in DNA and mess with replication. Given how fast biochemistry has developed in the last century, that mechanism is positively prehistoric. There are other mechanisms, some of which have been found more recently, but the basics are known for ages.

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196830)

many people find causation in thing and never win the Nobel prize. It's a poor yard stick.

And they have shown mechanisms for Global Climate Change.

From what I understand DOW chemical patent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36196828)

was on the original CFC propellant. It was about to expire & suddenly, the outcry of "it blows away the ozone layer" started. Funny how DOW chemical also had the patent on the "next-gen propellant" too, eh? They also don't mention that the size of the ozone layer depends on the position & tilt of the earth towards the sun while in orbit as well, so, depending on where you measure it and what time of year it is, it changes as well (which also, of course, NEVER gets noted in the research of "climate change experts" either, who are ALL bought & paid for lobbyists of a sort). The same shit goes for global warming: We don't have enough historical data to NOT know it's not just part of a normal "seasonal change" (which may be eons/epochs long in duration between cycles) of the planet itself. Consider these things people, & realize that MILLIONS to BILLIONS of dollars in grants for R&D are on the line here as well, & who lives off of those? Scientists & Educators largely. It's ALWAYS ABOUT THE "BENJAMINS" PEOPLE, always. So follow the money, & you see the constant scams & selling the easiest thing there is: FEAR (ask any life insurance salesman about that).

Re:Climate Change Deniers (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196850)

Actually, it's because the alternatives to CFCs were several orders of magnitude more profitable than the CFCs themselves.

Too little too late (1, Funny)

Palmsie (1550787) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196130)

Haven't you heard? The end is tomorrow.

Re:Too little too late (5, Funny)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196162)

No, but I'll be sure to read all about it on Sunday.

Re:Too little too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36196208)

No, but I'll be sure to read all about it on Sunday.

That's how seriously you're taking it, hmm? I'll do you one better. Tomorrow, on the day of this "apocalypse" / "rapture", I'll be flying cross-country.

Through Texas, to boot.

Re:Too little too late (5, Funny)

680x0 (467210) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196336)

Hope your plane doesn't crash from all those flying Christians getting sucked into the jet engines.

Re:Too little too late (1)

anyGould (1295481) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196466)

Just remember folks - the Rapture *will* happen Saturday. So any bible-thumpers who are still standing on Sunday have obviously been deemed unworthy.

Tomorrow? TOMORROW?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36196422)

Oh gods, I am going to @$&*! die a @#% virgin!

CFC banning is good for ozone (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36196134)

But the only solution they have for global warming is world government and regulating wealthy nations. This raises the cost of living and such which has indirect effects to global warming too, so it doesn't seem like a good situation. Poverty is a huge cause of environmental problems, and the more you raise the cost of living, the more people go into poverty. Also, a major point: Which would you rather have: A bigger and world government doing its governmental best to regulate something as nebulous as global warming, or our regular old crappy governments with less power doing nothing. I know a lot of people hate giving the government extra power as abuse of this power is the rule not the exception.

Re:CFC banning is good for ozone (1, Funny)

TeethWhitener (1625259) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196238)

You're totally right; we should ban carbon dioxide. But if you're waiting for the government to effectively regulate that, I just have one thing to say:

*puts on sunglasses*

Don't hold your breath.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:CFC banning is good for ozone (1)

econolog (2081738) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196262)

>the more you raise the cost of living, the more people go into poverty. This is incorrect. If you look today at just the quantity, there are more people living below the poverty line than 20 years ago but as a percentage it is much smaller. Generally the standards of living increase, even for the poorest. For example millions of more people have access to cleaner drinking water than they did a short time ago.

Re:CFC banning is good for ozone (1)

marnues (906739) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196314)

No, abuse of governmental power is the exception in our nation. The problem is one of perspective and that any abuse is a very terrible thing. Check African nations if you want to see countries where abuse is the rule. Also, don't confuse government powers that are disagreeable with abuse of power. The Department of Homeland Security, although the number 1 contender for my list of most corrupt agencies, is not itself governmental abuse. Warrentless phone tapping is, but that's ultimately a tiny part of what our government or the DoHS actually does.

Re:CFC banning is good for ozone (3, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196320)

I haven't seen anyone propose "world government" for the solution to global warming. The solution put forward has been for countries to agree to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions will increase costs, but effects of global warming will increase costs, too. The debate is what amount of spending on reducing carbon dioxide emissions will minimize total costs.

Cool.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36196158)

Now maybe we can start using CFCs again, and stop with these inferior coolants.

signs of atmostfear damaged infatdead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36196206)

evidenced by the fake clouds/'weather'. time to get real, or suffocate not trying. disarming might make a big difference

can someone please explain a couple holes I see (0)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196282)

In the theory, that is, not the ozone layer...

1. CFC's are much denser than air. The lightest possible CFC, which would be CH2FCl, would have an atomic weight around 62, much heavier than N2 at 28. How can something that wants to stay so close to the ground, even in the presence of normal Brownian motion, affect something so high up?

2. Ozone is also denser than air, by roughly 50%. Isn't it being produced up there by ionizing resulting from absorbing UV rays? Thus, ozone is the evidence, not an ingredient, of ultraviolet blocking?

I'm very interested in a summary explaining why my junior high chemistry and physics are wrong in this case.

Re:can someone please explain a couple holes I see (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36196362)

1. No. Fick's Law for a start. Find a CFD simulator and play with it. It doesn't work that way.

(Protip: it's about dynamics, not static).

(0/1.0)

2. Your assumption on the origin of ozone is correct. You might observe it has no correlation of the fact of ozone being an effective UV blocker.

(0.3/1.0)

Your grade: 0.3/2.0. You failed this class.

Re:can someone please explain a couple holes I see (1)

TheCouchPotatoFamine (628797) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196378)

I haven't read and cant give specific evidence... but neither can you. That should have told you to go do some research and make an informative post, but instead, you've decided to maintain your ignorance and maintain ours to boot.

Oh wait, ten seconds on google and you could have seen: http://www.ozonelayer.noaa.gov/science/basics.htm [noaa.gov]

Go read it!

Re:can someone please explain a couple holes I see (4, Informative)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196394)

In a nutshell, because the thermal, i.e. kinetic energy of atmospheric molecules is way too high to get separation by weight. They are moving in random directions too fast to settle down. As for the ozone layer being where it is, yes, it is being produced up there. The layer is a dynamic process - ozone being produced from oxygen by UV activation and reacting back. You get the layer at a certain height where you have the right balance of O2 concentration and UV intensity. CFCs are a catalyst that shift that equilibrium to the side of oxygen, removing the conditions that lead to the dynamic formation of the layer in the first place.

Re:can someone please explain a couple holes I see (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196996)

As someone else said the atmosphere isn't stationary long enough for the constituent elements to separate into layers by weight. It's like asking why sediment in moving water doesn't settle out immediately.

Also consider this, Ozone is also a product of combustion products (smog) being mixed with high temperatures air (summer). Ozone is actually a pollutant monitored by the clean air act that LA frequently violates in the summer. So why doesn't all that ozone float up and fill the hole in? Because if it's not exactly the right environment the ozone is destroyed, it's a very unstable molecule of oxygen. It's the reason the R-12 refrigerant could get up there and catalyze O3 back to O2 for 20 some odd years before the R-12 molecule was destroyed. Ozone is easily destroyed, it's also highly toxic (one reason they use it in water purification where taste is important enough to justify the cost).

cutting plutonious humvehicle chord might help (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36196296)

disabling the out of control greed based weapons peddlers among US would definitely help.

nice to hear some good news for once (1)

bl8n8r (649187) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196372)

too bad tomorrow is the end.

Re:nice to hear some good news for once (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36196416)

Tomorrow in Australia or tomorrow in America?

Re:nice to hear some good news for once (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196858)

According to the people who believe this crap, its at 6pm...in every timezone. so basically it will be a rolling event.

Once again. the end of the world has been brought to you by stupid people, whose own deity is so stupid, it doesn't understand timezones.

Please apply the scientific method... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36196450)

Just get a few dozen earths, divide them into control and experiment groups. We'll prove this hypothesis once and for all!!!

Oh, wait... that's right, you CAN'T, can you?

Hurry indoor children, the sky is falling.

22 years of banning CFC (0)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196464)

So PROVE this is what has brought it back and that it wasn't just a natural cycle of the earth. The earth is a hell of a lot bigger than us, and will do what it wants regardless if we are around to predict it or not.

Without hard proof Its all theory, and statistics, which ALWAYS lie..

Re:22 years of banning CFC (1)

marnues (906739) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196608)

Your desired level of proof is absurd. Your test is not falsifiable.

Also, stats are unable to lie or tell the truth. They are data, nothing more, but also nothing less. It is we humans who accept 1 interpretation of the data that are at fault.

Re:22 years of banning CFC (0)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196634)

Since no proof will be offered, i reject the conclusion and the banning only served to line the pockets of those that purchased the legislation.

Once again, the little guy gets screwed.

Re:22 years of banning CFC (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196900)

Fucking troll.

Mechanizes, evidence and prediction. They all came true. This is exactly what was predicted.

It was CFC, and I am sick and tired of you poor excuses for a limp wristed cum stains not even bothering to look at the research and data, yes still thinking your opinion on the matter deserves equal weight in the matter. You're opinion deserves no weight on this matter, and it is provable wrong.

Some curious coincidences (0)

Eukariote (881204) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196498)

As noted by physicist Denis G. Rancourt in his article some big lies of science [blogspot.com], there are some curious coincidences surrounding the ozone hole tale:

The 1987 Montreal Protocol banning chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) is considered a textbook case where science and responsible governance lead to a landmark treaty for the benefit of the Earth and all its inhabitants. How often does that happen?

At about the time that the DuPont patent on Freon(TM), the most widely used CFC refrigerant in the world, was expiring the mainstream media picked up on otherwise arcane scientific observations and hypotheses about ozone concentration in the upper atmosphere near the poles.

There resulted an international mobilization to criminalize CFCs and DuPont developed and patented a replacement refrigerant that was promptly certified for use.

A Nobel Prize in chemistry was awarded in 1995 for a laboratory demonstration that CFCs could deplete ozone in simulated atmospheric conditions. In 2007 it was shown that the latter work may have been seriously flawed by overestimating the depletion rate by an order of magnitude, thereby invalidating the proposed mechanism for CFC-driven ozone depletion [3]. Not to mention that any laboratory experiment is somewhat different from the actual upper atmosphere. Is the Nobel tainted by media and special interest lobbying?

[3] Nature 449, 382-383 (2007).

Re:Some curious coincidences (4, Interesting)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196662)

Nice crackpot you found there. My favourite - his acid rain piece. "Decades of monitoring to detect an effect". Right. Tell that to the deforested mountain ridges in my home county that have recovered just fine after SO2 was essentially removed from coal plant exhaust. As for that nature reference - you conveniently omit that this is not a paper, but a news blurb. Serious papers on the issue? Well, rather thin in that department. I met Paul Crutzen on several occasions and had some nice talks with him. Calling him a tool of special interest lobbying is quite... off the mark.

Re:Some curious coincidences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36196838)

What has SO2 and trees to do with the subject in question?

Oh, right. Nothing.

“This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.”

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html [nature.com]

(See end of the article for the scholarly references)

Re:Some curious coincidences (3, Interesting)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#36196968)

SO2 is insofar part of the subject in question as the crackpot mentioned above rants about acid rain not existing in the quoted blog. As for the references. Yes, ClOOCl photolysis under stratospheric conditions modelled in the lab is by a factor 6 lower than previously predicted. So? To quote the abstract of the paper in question: "This large discrepancy calls into question the completeness of present atmospheric models of polar ozone depletion" - true that. At no point, the basic mechanism is questioned, though. To quote the part of Rex' quote you conveniently omitted: "Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss.". In summary - you and the crackpot above take part of the usual scientific process, which is characterized by continuous refinement of models, out of context and construct a fundamental disagreement from it, which never existed in the first place. Basic propaganda tool.

bare ass farts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36196580)

anyone else like to bare their ass and launch farts at the sun?

More Greenie Horseshit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36196652)

"However, projecting forward, natural weather-related fluctuations mean that even as late as 2085, ozone will still drop below 1980 levels for at least one year in every ten. "

followed by

"A complicating factor in that prediction is the influence of climate change, says Karoly. "Even when CFCs are removed, ozone levels will be different in the future than they were in the 1960s, because of changes in temperature in the stratosphere.""

So they predict nothing in the future that could POSSIBLY prove their calculations wrong, and now the ozone hole is worse off because of "global warming", which once again they claim but cannot prove. I'm getting tired of these liberal "scientists" with an obvious agenda always coming up with doomesday scenarios that are the fault of me driving my car. Methane from cows is 15x the greenhouse gas of all cars and it is NEVER brought up. That tells me the entire movement is a political ploy to enslave people to live the way the "elite" say they should. Anyone who blindly accepts this is an idiot (Which includes about 80% of /. posters). Look up the maps yourself and compare the late 1990s vs recent and tell me you could possibly see any reduction in that time yourself and you will see what a complete farce this "research" is and know it for it political slant it really is.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...