Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Severe Arctic Ozone Loss

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the santa-needs-sunblock dept.

Earth 259

iONiUM writes "The BBC reports that 'Ozone loss over the Arctic this year was so severe that for the first time it could be called an "ozone hole" like the Antarctic one, scientists report. About 20km (13 miles) above the ground, 80% of the ozone was lost, they say. The cause was an unusually long spell of cold weather at altitude. In cold conditions, the chlorine chemicals that destroy ozone are at their most active.' This is the first time in observational history that the Arctic ozone has been depleted to such extensive levels (abstract). This will mean high UV problems for Russia, Greenland and Norway."

cancel ×

259 comments

Note to self... (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610690)

Note to self... Don't sun-bathe in the arctic... and wear layers.

Honestly though, it's been a while since I've seen much news about the Ozone layer. I hope people haven't forgotten that the damage done (or being done) is a problem.

Re:Note to self... (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610718)

Note to self... Don't sun-bathe in the arctic...

Good advice for anybody living around the arctic circle, as "a day out basking in the sun" there translates into a 6 month exposure and an epic sunburn.

Re:Note to self... (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610904)

Hmmm, I really wonder though. The sun is rarely up in the sky at these latitudes, so it is very highly unlikely that the sun's rays will go through the ozone hole and hit you. The rays that hit you go through the atmosphere much lower than the hole, so there should be no (or little) danger - at least, related to the ozone hole mentioned.

That, and the fact that the lower the sun is in the sky, the less UV you get since it goes through the atmosphere at a steep angle traversing the ozone layer on a diagonal which is much longer than the thickness of the layer itself. So all in all, I don't foresee big UV problems for Russia, Greenland and Norway.

I'm not a scientist though, so don't blame me if you get a sunburn.

Re:Note to self... (1)

praedictus (61731) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611382)

Dont be so sure, the worst sunburn I ever got on my face was in the subarctic back around 1990 or so. Low sun + snowcover = lots of reflected UV rays. The few bits exposed to the sun got right crispified, most of the crew suffered from some degree of sunburns till we ended up getting some sunblock flown in with the provisions.

Re:Note to self... (-1, Offtopic)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610768)

But that has nothing to do with carbon. We can deal with only one problem at a time. And Carbon won by popular vote.

How much are you willing to bet that this will be used to try to debunk global warming because there is an area that has colder then average weather.

I tried to explain a normal curve of weather chances and that Global warming has shifted it, it doesn't work. So on a year that is above average they go in panic mode, if it is below average then they figure it is just a myth.

Re:Note to self... (2, Insightful)

nharmon (97591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610962)

How much are you willing to bet that this will be used to try to debunk global warming because there is an area that has colder then average weather.

As much as I would be willing to bet that this will be used to try to prove global warming because there is an area that has colder than average weather.

Re:Note to self... (1)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611360)

I hate to break it to you, but the original paper in question actually cites stratospheric thermal isolation due to increased levels of CO2 as a possible cause of the lower temperatures. It doesn't go into any depth, because that's not what the paper is about, but that's not an idea that comes from nowhere.

Re:Note to self... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611706)

Note: CO2 as possible cause. Every paper I've seen lately has that phrase. Its just about meaningless since it gets peoples attention... and they hope more money to 'study' their pet research. Whether it is true or not, its lost its importance.

Re:Note to self... (2)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610986)

We can deal with only one problem at a time. And Carbon won by popular vote.

Actually, the ozone layer won, because we actually did something about it back in the 70s and 80s. But you are right, the next problem came along and everybody thought the hole in the ozone layer was solved.

How much are you willing to bet that this will be used to try to debunk global warming because there is an area that has colder then average weather.

I would not bet a thing. This bozo [slashdot.org] already beat you to it!

Re:Note to self... (1)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611108)

Well we have band CFCs. But the way they where band had nothing to do with the environment and more to do will felling "green". Take the small particle accelerator at my old physics institute. It used 3 tons of CFC for cooling. By law they had to no longer use this 3 tons. So we asked what do we do with these 3 tons of CFCs? "Just release it into the atmosphere" we were told. In the end that was what was done since nothing else was legal.

Re:Note to self... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611076)

I'm from a Eastern Canada, Newfoundland to be exact. This past summer has been crappier than normal and I think it's all because of the Labrador current. This is a current of water that brings the melt water from the ice cap and Greenland glacier South. As the amount of water from the North increases, the colder the on land temperature get's. This year, there was an iceberg the size of Manhattan floated south so I suspect that the ocean on the grand banks is colder.

Re:Note to self... (2)

JustOK (667959) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611190)

isn't it always half a degree colder in NL than elsewhere?

Re:Note to self... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611432)

No, it's always 10% wetter in The Netherlands than elsewhere. But that has more to do with rising groundwater than precipitation.

Re:Note to self... (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611184)

Frustrating, isn't it. Irritates me no end when someone hears that we just had, for example, "the coldest August day in x years" (or coldest month/year/etc), and then starts ranting about how global warming must therefore be completely made up.

Never mind the fact that for every minimum temperature record that's getting set around these parts nowadays, there's at least 5 maximum temp records being set (no matter which time scale you look at - daily, monthly, yearly). As you say, that 'probability curve' has been shifted upwards. Noticeable even in my lifetime (and I'm not that old) - it's generally hotter and drier here (south-east Australia) than it used to be (on average), despite the fact that yes, we still get cold and wet days/months/years.

Not that I'm not one of those global warming panic merchants - I don't buy into the extreme scenarios. But anyone with a decent understanding of basic statistics can't argue with the fact that it is, globally, on average, getting warmer over time (and at a much faster rate than has historically occurred due to natural cycles, outside of major extinction events). The cause of that and impacts of that are up for debate, but I really don't think the raw numbers are.

Where have I seen this before (-1, Troll)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610704)

Oh yes, 2005 [guardian.co.uk] . And 1999-2000. And the world completely failed to end. In fact everything was back to normal in a few years. Well since the environuts have lost the polar bear debate, I guess now we have to worry about the big bad Northern Ozone Hole coming and killing us in our sleep. But hey make up your mind, is this Arctic cold snap caused by Global Warming too, or what?

Re:Where have I seen this before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610796)

I dare you to move to Australia and walk around topless in the sun all day every day. Or even with a shirt on. Stand in the shade, where the sun's not shining directly on you.

Yeah, it's a myth designed to impinge on your freedom to be an arsehole.

I would suggest that you're free to be one, but you don't need that freedom to become one. You're already there.

Re:Where have I seen this before (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610858)

Go fuck a wombat.

Re:Where have I seen this before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610970)

Sounds interesting, do you have a site where I can learn how to do it?
Or learning how to fuck a wombat on your own is part of the fun ?

Re:Where have I seen this before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611074)

But the important question here is, would the wombat give pleasure or take pleasure....

Re:Where have I seen this before (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610992)

This is all well and good, but is this climate a recent turn of events or is it like that since as long as you can remember?

Re:Where have I seen this before (3, Insightful)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611166)

The Ozone hole has never got close to NZ or Australia. In fact it has never been within a 1000 miles.

Re:Where have I seen this before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610814)

The Ozone layer has nothing to do with global warming. It is something entirely separate.

Re:Where have I seen this before (1, Interesting)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610870)

In this case you are wrong. Global warming has EVERYTHING to do with the hole in the ozone layer. Greenhouse gases that cause global warming also cause a cooling in the upper atmosphere and THAT is the cause of the ozone hole, because the CFC chemicals that destroy ozone are activated by low temperatures.

Re:Where have I seen this before (2)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610816)

since the environuts have lost the polar bear debate

In whose mind? Compare global warming awareness today to 10 years ago - there are significant policies in place and continued effort at carbon emission reductions....

Re:Where have I seen this before (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610860)

So the ends justify the means.

Re:Where have I seen this before (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611012)

So the ends justify the means.

Ozone hole deniers and global warming through CO2 deniers are both the same, people who refuse to believe that physics works.

awesome abuse of moderation bro (0)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611388)

"Troll" does not mean "that with which I disagree"
It means "That which you do not believe but are saying just to get a rise out of people"
As opposed to flamebait, "That which you know will lead only to a flamewar but which you say anyway"
Now, you could argue that my comment above is flamebait, but there is no way in which it is a troll, because PHYSICS WORKS.

Re:Where have I seen this before (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610982)

I think we need to thank GWB for these efforts for carbon emission. He allowed our Gas prices to go over $4.00 a gallon. Causing people to look towards more fuel efficient cars. Compare that to Clinton who kept gas prices really low causing almost every American to get huge SUVs.

The reason why the emission reductions are working now is the fact for most businesses it means saving money because fuel is too expensive. And saying you support a green movement is just good PR which sound better then we cannot afford to pay the energy bill.

If energy is cheap we will use it more. Most of us would love to drive large 4 wheel drive trucks vs. the small hybrid car but economics has forced us to make a trade off. Unfortunately a bad economy is good for the environment.

Re:Where have I seen this before (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611086)

I think we need to thank GWB for these efforts for carbon emission. He allowed our Gas prices to go over $4.00 a gallon

Agreed - I was astonished that people voted for his re-election as prices were spiraling upwards. Though, I don't think there was a single green thought at the highest levels that year, as I recall, the oil companies posted all time record high profits that year.

Re:Where have I seen this before (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611116)

Not to mention that Bush decided not to have the US sign the Kyoto agreement.

Re:Where have I seen this before (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611302)

So true. After all, that agreement really put the brakes on China stinking up the planet.

Re:Where have I seen this before (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611418)

I think the Chinese take the attitude "we will when you will". But hey if Chinese manufacturing bothers you so much, go ahead and boycott Chinese products and I dunno, go live in the forest or something.

Re:Where have I seen this before (1)

Bartles (1198017) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611740)

Actually the United States signed the Kyoto "agreement" in in 1997. It has not been ratified by the Senate.

Re:Where have I seen this before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611218)

You're missing the point and all things considered I'm guessing that you're doing it on purpose. How witty of you.
 
Oh, and if you're not missing the point on purpose I really hope you're not in a possition to make any real decisions.

Re:Where have I seen this before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611344)

He allowed our Gas prices to go over $4.00 a gallon

Wait.. WHAT? YOU GET CHEAP GAS??

Overhere (we buy in Liters), we get it at 5EUR a gallon. With the current exchange currenty that's make 6.5 USD/Gallon for diesel.

Re:Where have I seen this before (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611746)

You only just noticed that you have higher gas prices in europe than america? Well you are a special kind of retarded aren't you.

forced us to make a trade off (1)

SquirrelDeth (1972694) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611454)

Exactly we have been forced to buy poor quality under powered cars (there was a hybrid built in Canada in 1926 that got 56 mi/gal) at a ridiculous price because it is the only way to afford to drive. Meanwhile we see that the people telling us it is good we can't afford to buy my gas for a larger vehicle because we are saving the environment are the ones driving the fancy cars and flying their jets because their emissions are ok . Meanwhile the ones telling us what to do for our own good are the ones over charging us for fuel, shitty cars and electricity. They are charging us more money for less product and laughing all the way to the dealership to buy another fuel guzzling car because they can now afford to own one more car. And hey since we don't pollute as much they can pollute more now.

Re:Where have I seen this before (2)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611654)

You are correct. The environuts won the polar bear debate when they got them listed as a "threatened species", even though there are more polar bears today (by a factor of several magnitudes) than at any time since scientists started counting them.

Re:Where have I seen this before (3, Insightful)

Peter H.S. (38077) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610822)

> But hey make up your mind, is this Arctic cold snap caused by Global Warming too, or what?

Yes. The colder air than usual in the stratosphere is caused by the fact that greenhouse gases insulate so much that less heat escape to space. Common sense actually. So yes, this phenomenon is a very good indication that the greenhouse effect is both real and increasing.

Really, only the anti-science loony fringe denies global climate changes now a days, the scientific evidence for man made influence on the present climate change keep on coming, and is getting confirmed from many different sources. AFAIK, not a single scientific study trying to find other causes than human influence, have succeded in explaining what is going on.

--
Regards

Re:Where have I seen this before (2)

_merlin (160982) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611052)

Yes. The colder air than usual in the stratosphere is caused by the fact that greenhouse gases insulate so much that less heat escape to space. Common sense actually. So yes, this phenomenon is a very good indication that the greenhouse effect is both real and increasing.

I am not a climate scientist. I am a former telecommunications engineer (I contributed to 802.11n standardisation process) who now works in market making (gotta follow the dollar when you have young mouths to feed). Explain to me in a way that I can understand why insulation that reduces heat escaping into space causes air in the stratosphere to be colder than usual. By my uninformed logic, I would expect air to be warmer if less heat is escaping.

Not trying to troll - just looking for an explanation that makes sense. I'm not uneducated, stupid, poor or unwilling to learn. I don't work in an industry that stands to lose if we have to cut back on carbon pollution. I'm just a curious guy who wants to know why the logic that appears to be contradicted is wrong.

Re:Where have I seen this before (1)

trout007 (975317) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611102)

I think what he is saying is that the heat trapping layer is below the stratosphere. So IR comes in heats the ground. If there is a layer of insulation it prevents the heat from traveling up into the stratosphere.

Kind of like if you heat your house in the winter the more insulation the colder the attic is.

Re:Where have I seen this before (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611136)

Not much of an engineer then are you. Clue: look at where the layers are. Heat isn't getting to an upper layer because one below it is insulating it from the heat below. My 8 year old could have told you that.

Re:Where have I seen this before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611154)

I am not a climate scientist, but I think the basic gist is that if greenhouse gases are to blame for heating at the surface, then cooling happens in the upper atmosphere to compensate. The heat that would normally pass through the stratosphere on it's way out isn't getting there.

For example the surface of Venus is many times hotter than that of Earth (due to greenhouse gases), but it's upper atmosphere is many times cooler.

Re:Where have I seen this before (1)

Goboxer (1821502) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611164)

I don't know much about climate myself, but I do know that the atmosphere is several layers of chemically goodness.

If the heat is trapped below the area where most of the ozone resides than the heat wouldn't get to pass through the ozone layer on its way out into space, thus not being able to warm it. When I tried to look up the phenomena in an article I read recently all they said was that it was generally accepted that increased surface temperature results in chillier atmosphere (which is not a helpful explanation) http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-10/so-now-there%E2%80%99s-ozone-hole-over-arctic-what-does-mean [popsci.com] .

Re:Where have I seen this before (1)

phyzz (629973) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611266)

The stratosphere is the layer of the atmosphere where temperature goes hotter the higher you go since the ozone gas releases heat when broken into monoatomic oxygen and diatomic oxygen by the ultraviolet rays of the Sun.

I suppose the parent estimated that some heat was also absorbed from the troposphere (the layer directly below the stratosphere, and the lowest of the layers, where all meteorological events take place). Since the greenhouse gases are in the troposphere, they shield the stratosphere from the heat radiating from the Earth back to space.

Re:Where have I seen this before (0)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611272)

No, see, these morons have a very rudimentary understanding of science, ie the went to see a movie called "An Inconvenient Truth". Apparently clouds are formed in the arctic on cold days (go figure, I've lived in Canada many years and on really cold days you don't get clouds at all because it's hard to get water vapor to condense and supersaturate the atmosphere at those temperatures but let's ignore this science for a second). These "cold clouds" then prevent light from reaching the surface but AT THE SAME TIME trap heat underneath them, causing the stratosphere to cool down. Or was it heat up? Now let's ignore the second fact - that the stratosphere starts at above 30,000 feet (not many clouds at that height except the odd thunder-head but most of these morons have never flown in an airplane either). But somehow through the miracle of magic (and I guess convection currents? I'm not a meteorologist), this affects the ozone layer some 90,000 feet above THAT.

Now I won't argue that our global climate is not a dynamic system - it is very dynamic and chaotic. I won't even argue against a warming trend for the past 40,000 years or so when glaciers covered most of our land masses. I mean it's pretty obvious the average temperatures are increasing. What I will argue against however is the constant use of bullshit to try and convince people that they should hate themselves for existing, in the name of global warming. I am sure that recent volcanic activity alone has affected the global climate far more than human activity. I am sure that there is a positive correlation between cold weather and ozone holes.

However the tail does not wag the dog, and the cart does not go before the horse. A lot of these idiots really need to get back to basic chemistry and read up on Le Chatelier to understand why temperature changes can affect all sorts of equilibrium states, be it the Co2-Bicarbonate equilibrium between the atmosphere and the oceans, or the oxygen-ozone equilibriums in the stratosphere. But no it's easier to wave pitchforks and call people names instead of actually learning a bit of science.

Re:Where have I seen this before (2)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611650)

I am sure that recent volcanic activity alone has affected the global climate far more than human activity.

Well, you're DEAD WRONG. Volcanoes emit about 1% as much CO2 as human activities. Look it up. The main effect of volcanoes is *cooling* caused by ash, which only lasts a couple of years max.

Every time you see someone mention volcanoes as the culprit in a discussion about GW, you can be sure that they don't have a frigging clue what they're talking about, and everything they post can be safely ignored.

Re:Where have I seen this before (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611764)

Volcanoes emit about 1% as much CO2

You know that CO2 is nowhere near being the "worst" greenhouse gas, right? Why are you even discussing CO2 when you should be discussing methane and water vapor?

Re:Where have I seen this before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611720)

What I will argue against however is the constant use of bullshit to try and convince people that they should hate themselves for existing, in the name of global warming.

What an awesome strawman!

I am sure that recent volcanic activity alone has affected the global climate far more than human activity.

So much for relying on facts & science. Man makes about 150 *times* more co2 than volcanoes. Per year.
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/education/gases/man.html [oregonstate.edu]

Or volcanic CO2 production is about 1% of man-made CO2 production (as of 4 years ago):
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html [usgs.gov]
Maybe you should go back and actually look at what these changes might make to the chemical & temperature balance of the atmosphere.

But, no, we're not affecting anything by dumping that much CO2 into the atmosphere.

Re:Where have I seen this before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611752)

CO2 level is a third-order variable in the atmosphere. It's not even worth putting into your model.

Re:Where have I seen this before (1)

Barefoot Monkey (1657313) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611430)

Conversely, by my similarly-uninformed logic I expected air to be cooler if less heat is escaping into it. Probably because I automatically assumed the insulation to be below the stratosphere while you assumed it to be above. I'm sure someone will tell us where greenhouse gasses actually accumulate and then we won't be as uninformed.

Re:Where have I seen this before (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611088)

Err.. Your common sense isn't working.

What you say would be true if the greenshouse gases suddenly appears and blocks heat from escaping. As it is it only delays heat from escaping quicker. If all the heat coming from the sun did not also escape as heat, it would not take long before earth was hotter than the sun..

Re:Where have I seen this before (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611206)

Too bad the anti-science loony fringe also includes some left wingers that appose nuclear power at every turn. We could have been totally off coal decades ago.

Re:Where have I seen this before (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611426)

Yes. The colder air than usual in the stratosphere is caused by the fact that greenhouse gases insulate so much that less heat escape to space. Common sense actually.

You have a very optimistic understanding of what common sense is. Most people don't seem to understand that local and regional climate variations can be a lot bigger than global variations. Take for example my country of Norway, if I compare us to say Siberia or Alaska we probably have 3-4C warmer climate because of the Gulf Stream, while the estimates on global warming are something like 0.8C in the last 100 years. If global warming fucks up that, our country and most of Northern Europe could end up being a colder place even if the world in total warms up. Also precipitation will change around the world, which leads to huge changes. For example one I thing I heard was that warmer poles means more humid air and more snowfall, weighing up for increased melting. But the world has still gotten warmer as a whole. There's lots of things like that where people point to a local phenomenon and say see, global warming is false. That's roughly as far as common sense goes, I'm afraid.

Re:Where have I seen this before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611480)

No, it is all crap. Living through all of these chicken little scenarios has made the world jaded. Overpopulation was a huge crisis, but then it wasn't. Global cooling due to smog was a huge crisis, but then it wasn't. Acid rain was a huge crisis, then it wasn't. The Ozone layer was a huge crisis, then it wasn't.. now it is again. Whatever, if there were coherent science around it then we'd all be able to understand and fix the problem. For every environmental "scientist" that spits out his granola and runs down the street without bothering to put their sandals on, there is a person who no longer gives a damn. These people have cried wolf way too many times and people are sick of listening. I'd love for them to be right but now that we have given up Freon and other ozone depleting gasses the ozone hole gets bigger? Do they actually know why? No, they don't.

Re:Where have I seen this before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610826)

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but, yes, it is: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q7

The average yearly temperature for the entire world is increasing slightly, but at the same time the extremes in hot and cold are becoming more severe over the past two decades (just slightly fewer cold than hot).

Re:Where have I seen this before (2)

forand (530402) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610906)

Wait, so you link to articles about an accelerated loss of the ozone layer in the Arctic due to cold weather then say nothing came of it in the comments to an article discussing the first hole in the Arctic ozone layer? Using your timeline this seems like a rather reasonable progression of events but the tone of your post makes it sound like this is par for the course.

Holes in the ozone layer can have very significant effects on humans in regions were those holes exists. The ozone layer protects the surface of the Earth from some of the UV flux emitted by the sun. UV light is known to cause skin cancer in humans. Having a hole above a populated area of the world (unlike where the Antarctic hole usually forms) can have lasting effects on those populations. These effects may not be obvious for years due to the varying timelines for cancer development.

Please just try to address information objectively before imposing your beliefs on it. Be critical of any argument put forward and prepared to change your view point to fit new facts. Skimming an article and asserting it is the same old thing when it is blatantly not serves you and those who listen to you poorly.

Re:Where have I seen this before (-1, Troll)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610938)

The world completely failed to end...

Here we go with the climate denier trolls.

Since they refuse to pale in the face of logic, it would be nice to be able to reach through the screen and tear him a new asshole, or rip off his head and shit down his neck, but alas, such enabling technology does not yet exist.

Re:Where have I seen this before (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611032)

it would be nice to be able to reach through the screen and tear him a new asshole, or rip off his head and shit down his neck

This is the hallmark of pretty much all fanatics everywhere. Well done. Why don't you throw in a couple Allahu-ackbars too, before you decapitate me?

Re:Where have I seen this before (-1, Troll)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611178)

it would be nice to be able to reach through the screen and tear him a new asshole, or rip off his head and shit down his neck

This is the hallmark of pretty much all fanatics everywhere. Well done. Why don't you throw in a couple Allahu-ackbars too, before you decapitate me?

I'm an atheist, but whatever turns your crank.

Re:Where have I seen this before (0)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611048)

Careful. Many of the more hardcore wackjob denialists think that anyone who wants to reduce carbon emissions is a crypto-communist-revolutionary (they call them "watermelons" - "green on the outside, red on the inside") who wants to commit genocide against the denialists as part of their plan to create a socialist one-world-government. Don't give them any ammo.

Re:Where have I seen this before (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611162)

Careful. Many of the more hardcore wackjob denialists think that anyone who wants to reduce carbon emissions is a crypto-communist-revolutionary (they call them "watermelons" - "green on the outside, red on the inside") who wants to commit genocide against the denialists as part of their plan to create a socialist one-world-government. Don't give them any ammo.

You see, that's where they win all the time. They can say anything they want. But aside from the one world government, that all sounds good.

Besides, with free trade we already have what amounts to a one world government, it's hardly socialist.

Re:Where have I seen this before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611232)

You're an idiot and proof that just because you agree with a scientist, doesn't make you smart.

Re:Where have I seen this before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611160)

Here we go with the non-anthropogenic climate denier trolls...
Since every year for over 30 years, the world has been ending "in the next 5 years unless we act NOW", it would be nice if once in a while this actually came true and killed some of these morons who believe cavemen in SUVs caused the last ice age. But alas, such climate disasters don't exist.

Seriously, anthropogenic climate change is the original "this is the year of Linux on the desktop" joke. Except it's not even funny, when you get idiots like the parent and their AGW crusades. I mean you have a prophet and his holy book which is full of contradictions and proven lies, you have the political influence, the groupthink, forcing schools to teach children one unproven belief and not any counterpoints, the extreme irrational hatred of anyone who doesn't believe, even to the point of murdering non-believers, the refusal to debate actual arguments and instead assert being right regardless of fact, the constant plea for donations in order to repent for the sins of man, the use of pseudo-science and misrepresentation of scientific opinions.

If it walks like religion, quacks like religion, then AGW is the biggest and most dangerous bullshit of a religion around, and martyrs like Tsingi only prove the point further.

Re:Where have I seen this before (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611404)

... martyrs like Tsingi only prove the point further.

Just because it makes me angry that assholes like you don't care that we are destroying the earth. Which I will admit, is exactly what you want. You win that one.

I fail to see how that makes me a martyr? Or how me being pissed off proves or disproves anything?

What it proves is that you will jump on anything and call it proof.

Re:Where have I seen this before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611684)

"But hey make up your mind, is this Arctic cold snap caused by Global Warming too, or what?"

Um...yes, obviously?

The upper atmospheric cooling is predicted in global warming models. The Earth does not heat or cool evenly, different parts will heat faster. The models even predict that parts of the planet's surface will cool down while most of the planet warms up--and those areas are, in fact, showing trends of cooling instead of warming.

That the parts that are cooling were predicted correctly by the models is verification that the models are most likely correct.

Here is a link to a well-documented article on the liberal blog Daily Kos. You can believe it or not, as you choose, but, as I said, it is well-documented and you can check his sources if you actually care to remove your ignorance and idiotic bias:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/06/15/876231/-Breaking:-Global-Cooling-Proven

Global warming (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610706)

The air has been exceptionally cold up there? Where is all that global warming everyone is speaking about?

Re:Global warming (5, Informative)

Nulukkhizdin (1086481) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610784)

Global warming due to CO2 == heat is trapped in the troposphere => less heat lost => colder stratosphere.

If the global warming was due to the Sun, the whole atmosphere would be warming.

On the other hand, Venus has runaway greenhouse effect and its stratosphere is abnormally cold.

Re:Global warming (1, Informative)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610976)

Venus stratosphere ranges between 385C and 75C.

This is abnormally cold to you?

Re:Global warming (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611104)

Yea you guys always find excuses.

Re:Global warming (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611758)

Well I for one think that "finding excuses" as you put it is a lot better than putting your fingers in your ear and going lalala until people stop trying to talk to you.

Re:Global warming (1)

lemonhead_bastard (1867038) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611110)

Venus is not a good analog. Sure it's hot as hell, but it's atmosphere is many times larger than ours (93 times denser). CO2 makes up an very small percentage of our atmosphere (approx 0.0387%) versus 96% on Venus. You do make a good point about the warming by the Sun, however. But you would also need to factor in changes in wind patterns and other factors before you can completely negate any solar effect.

Re:Global warming (2)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611284)

Actually, Venus is a good example because people best undersand extremes. If you want to demonstrate the effects of greenhouse gases, what better way than to point to a planet where they compose the vast majority of the atmosphere? Venus is what would happen if all of the Earth's atmosphere were to be replaced with greenhouse gases.

If you look at, say, Mars and Venus, you have the two opposites. Earth stands somewhere along the two; global warming is inching us closer to Venus. We'll never actually reach Venus levels, obviously, but the comparison is still apt.

Re:Global warming (1)

lemonhead_bastard (1867038) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611500)

I think the two atmosphere's are substantially different to the degree that extrapolating data from Venus and applying it to Earth is invalid. It may make for good PR, but it doesn't equate. In Venus you have substantially thicker atmosphere and substantially more Solar radiation. What Venus does show is that atmosphere can affect temperature because it's hotter than Mercury. However, I think the case is attempted to be made too often that Earth is going to turn into Venus because of human activity, and I think that is a mistake.

Re:Global warming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610812)

The air has been exceptionally cold up there? Where is all that global warming everyone is speaking about?

Mr. Republican/Tea party member, the correct term is "Climate Change". Enjoy the rest of your science bashing day.

Re:Global warming (4, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610882)

The air has been exceptionally cold up there? Where is all that global warming everyone is speaking about?

Mr. Republican/Tea party member, the correct term is "Climate Change".
Enjoy the rest of your science bashing day.

Can you point to a time... any time in history when earth was NOT experiencing "Climate Change"?

Re:Global warming (0)

CheerfulMacFanboy (1900788) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611024)

Can you point to a time... any time in history when earth was NOT experiencing "Climate Change"?

Can you point to a time... any time in history when earth was NOT experiencing "people dying"? So why do you mind being killed?

Re:Global warming (1)

JTsyo (1338447) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611230)

Sure, that's easy. For the vast majority of Earth's history people weren't dying. Say 4 billion BC to 2 million BC.

Re:Global warming (1)

x6060 (672364) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611256)

Reductio ad absurdum. Try a better argument.

Re:Global warming (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611056)

I don't think you get what the parent was talking about:

http://pastebin.com/BBquTAt3 [pastebin.com]

Re:Global warming (2)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611066)

Can you point to a time... any time in history when earth was NOT experiencing "Climate Change"?

Can you point to a time... any time in history when the earth experience warming on the scale that it is now when it should have actually been cooling.

The people who spend their lives studying the climate are quite familiar with the way it changes over time. You didn't really surprise them with this stunning revelation. The problem is not that it is changing, but the rate of change.

But then you knew that, because it has been pointed out to you time and time again and yet you still spew out the same uninformed one-liners that are supposed to counter the volumes of research that has been done on this subject. But you might as well keep it up, because the surveys show that it is actually working. It appears that stupidity is catching after all.

Re:Global warming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611244)

Good thing we have those thousands of contradictory climate "models" to prove just how unsurprised these studiers of the climate are.

Re:Global warming (4, Informative)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611278)

No, of course he can't. Climate changes due to natural events and cycles. I don't think anyone denies that.

However, he can point out that according to the best figures we have, the climate is currently changing at a far greater rate than has occurred previously (outside of major extinction events), and that that pace of change cannot be explained by natural causes alone. We are seeing changes over decades-to-centuries time frames that would normally take millennia (or longer).

Re:Global warming (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610852)

Global warming describes a process of GLOBAL warming. The average temperature over the entire globe raises a few degrees. This is not to say that every environment or biome is affected in the same way. Since the arctic has been undergoing warming for so long, this cold period could be caused by ice melt causing a rise in water surface area allowing additional light/energy to reflect back into space. Basically, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are probably not a climate scientist because a single data point does not a trend make.

Re:Global warming (0)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610874)

The air has been exceptionally cold up there? Where is all that global warming everyone is speaking about?

Texas? Good spot for it IMHO.

I don't see the phrase global warming (1, Funny)

GeneralTurgidson (2464452) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610778)

My American mind doesn't trust the scientific integrity of this article.

Chlorine? (1)

funehmon (648132) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610794)

Carbon, you are out. Green = low chlorine footprint.

Now what do I have to do to fix this? (1)

BetaDays (2355424) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610828)

Now what do I have to stop doing to fix this?

Re:Now what do I have to do to fix this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611018)

Nothing, all the protocols and products causing this were banned years ago. It just takes 75 years for the atmosphere to clean itself.

What is this high latitude countries to worry about the whole, it will move all the way to the Mediterranean, so all of USA or Europe or Russia has to worry about it and keep out of the sun.

Now, start taking vitamin D tablets.

Re:Now what do I have to do to fix this? (1)

JTsyo (1338447) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611258)

Get rid of all swimming pools.

Possible to manufacture ozone and seed? (2)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611010)

The concentrations of O3 in question are quite small. Would manufacturing (or capturing surface ozone, which is a pollutant when here with us surface dwellers) O3, lofting tanks on high altitude balloons over the poles and releasing it help?

I realize how insane this sounds.

Re:Possible to manufacture ozone and seed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611494)

I'm tired of hearing about a high ozone polution days in my city.

If it's such a small quantity as we're always told, why can't they fly some up there in a U2 or weather balloons?

Better Links (2)

juggledean (792527) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611214)

It was a Nature [nature.com] article. The Weather Underground [wunderground.com] has a thoughtful discussion.

MARE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611248)

Be a lot sloweR Mi8e of decay, for a moment and

Springtime Phenomenon (1)

Nate_weather_guy (203228) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611352)

Why is this being reported now? The ozone depletion is a springtime phenomenon. The high exposure to UV at high latitudes would be experienced during the late spring and summer.

Temps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611444)

Let me guess...the unusually cold temperatures were caused by global warming...lol

I call bullshit (1)

Sooner Boomer (96864) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611690)

From TFA: "In cold conditions, the chlorine chemicals that destroy ozone are at their most active." This is wrong, because chemical reactions slow as temperatures decrease. It is an axiom in chemistry that the rate of the reaction halves (or doubles) for each 10 degree C drop (or increase) in temperature. A far as I can tell, there has been no high altitude sampling that has detected any CFCs in the Artic. This is just more environmental fear mongering and finger pointing without scientific proof.

Re:I call bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611784)

Sounds dubious, but what if: slowing down the reaction of the chemicals (as you mention), allows more chemicals to reach the ozone, increasing the number of reactions.

Re:I call bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611790)

I have a degree in chemistry, and I've never heard any such rule of thumb. So, I call bullshit on you. Furthermore, anyone who knows anything about chemistry knows that for damn near any chemistry rule, there is an exception.

Another thing I can't bring myself to care about! (2)

chrishillman (852550) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611716)

WTF? So we banned CFCs in the 80s to save the ozone layer but in a cruel twist of fate the increase in CO2 causes the air down here to get warmer and the air way up there to get colder and that makes the CFCs more efficient and therefore better at destroying the ozone? Yeah? So we are supposed to... do... what? How do we know that banning all carbon would not have some other unforeseen issue? These people have no idea what they are talking about or they do but are not saying anything productive. It will be news if one of these guys knew how to fix any of this mess or had something productive to say. The truth is that we are fracked no matter what and we should really focus upon what we will leave in the fossil record and enjoy the time we have left!
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...