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!

Over the Antarctic, the Smallest Ozone Hole In a Decade

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the less-deodorant-for-everyone dept.

Earth 174

hypnosec writes "The ozone layer seems to be on a road to recovery over Antarctica; according to Europe's MetOp weather satellite, which is monitoring atmospheric ozone, the hole over the South Pole in 2012 was the smallest it's been in the last 10 years. The decrease in size of the hole is probably the result of reduction in the concentration of CFCs, especially since the mid-1990s, because of international agreements like the Montreal Protocol."

cancel ×

174 comments

HypnoToad says (2, Insightful)

DFurno2003 (739807) | about a year and a half ago | (#42851891)

Correlation is not causation.

Re:HypnoToad says (5, Informative)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42851927)

Except that these processes are simple enough that we can measure the high altitude concentrations of these compounds and show that their influence on the O3 concentration closely matches our understanding of the processes involved.

Re:HypnoToad says (3, Informative)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about a year and a half ago | (#42853747)

I did read a paper not so long ago about the Ozone layer being regulated to a large degree by cosmic rays, over the Antarctic [uwaterloo.ca] .

And by the way, moderating dissenting voices "troll" is totally beyond the pale. Science is about skepticism. Physicists are highly skeptical of each other's results. When it comes to Earth Sciences, why is it that people crowd the paradigm like it's a sacred tome? Debates here would be far more interesting if they were actually allowed.

So tell me... (-1, Troll)

publiclurker (952615) | about a year and a half ago | (#42853787)

Are you equally as skeptical about the Holocaust and other "controversial" topics?

Re:So tell me... (5, Insightful)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about a year and a half ago | (#42853827)

It depends on the topic really. Not skeptical at all about the Holocaust, no, mostly because my Grandfather was at Burgen Belsen in 1945 with the British Army. And attempts to lump everyone who is skeptical of one thing together with anyone who's skeptical about anything is just a poor debating tactic.

Re:HypnoToad says (-1, Offtopic)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | about a year and a half ago | (#42852021)

MoronToad says you are an idiot.

Sweet!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42852149)

I have a stash of 80s era aqua-net I've been saving for this occasion!!!!!

Re:HypnoToad says (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42854257)

Indeed.

The decrease in size of the hole is probably the result of reduction in the concentration of CFCs, especially since the mid-1990s, because of international agreements like the Montreal Protocol.

It was urgent that CFCs be phased out not because of atmospheric damage but because DuPont's patents on them were about to expire. Anyone who works with refrigerants knows how "fucked" the replacements are compared to their predecessors.

Re:HypnoToad says (2, Informative)

russotto (537200) | about a year and a half ago | (#42854773)

It was urgent that CFCs be phased out not because of atmospheric damage but because DuPont's patents on them were about to expire.

That's bullshit. R-12 and R-22 were long out of patent by the time the phaseout started.

Anyone who works with refrigerants knows how "fucked" the replacements are compared to their predecessors.

That, unfortunately, is true.

Buttholes are for fucking (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42851911)

And your asshole is especially delicious. My cock wants to live inside your asshole. I can't stop talking about your scrumphole. Your scrumphole is such that its scrumpyolyness is on an entirely different level!

Allow me to screw...

Re:Buttholes are for fucking (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42853393)

Mod this up for being completely fucking spot on.

This is great news. (4, Insightful)

noobermin (1950642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42851925)

Perhaps this means that conservation efforts over the last decade have had effect? I don't know, I'm honestly speaking from a point of view that is ignorant of climate science. In any case, this is great news.

More Flame Wars (0)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year and a half ago | (#42852071)

No, this will re-kindle the fire that both sides of the coin have been at for the last 30 years or so. Watch as more "research" is done to prove/disprove that conservation is having an impact on the earth in general. The oil companies will take credit that their efforts are showing effect so we shouldn't stop using gas while actual climatologists fight tooth and nail to get the years' research grant money.

Re:More Flame Wars (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42852185)

What does oil and gas have to do with CFCs?

Re:More Flame Wars (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42852735)

CFCs are gas. And hydrocarbon, just like oil! What more could you ask for? ;)

Re:This is great news. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42852161)

No. The hole in the ozone is caused by chlorine in the stratosphere, which gets there in chloroflorocarbons, catalyzing the O3 generated by the radiation in the upper atmosphere. It has nothing to do with climate change or greenhouse gasses.

Re:This is great news. (1)

noobermin (1950642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42852599)

Thanks for the clarification.

Re:This is great news. (1)

rgbatduke (1231380) | about a year and a half ago | (#42853417)

Well, except for the fact that ozone is an important GHG -- one of the three most important ones, from the spectroscopic data -- albeit one that is most common in the stratosphere where it warms the tropopause from above, rather than in the troposphere...

rgb

Re:This is great news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42854085)

Except that the CFCs are greenhouse gases, too.

Re:This is great news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42852167)

I blame global warming, after all there's a weak correlation between increased global temperatures and a smaller ozone hole.

Re:This is great news. (0)

jhoegl (638955) | about a year and a half ago | (#42852211)

You do realize that these arguments mean fuckall to Nature.
The earth will repair itself eventually, with or without us.

Re:This is great news. (4, Funny)

leenks (906881) | about a year and a half ago | (#42852271)

That's what the Martian's said, too!

Re:This is great news. (2)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#42852667)

What's a 'said'? What did it do?

Re:This is great news. (1)

smellotron (1039250) | about a year and a half ago | (#42854917)

That's what the Martian's said, too!

What's a 'said'? What did it do?

GP used a Martian apostrophe, you insensitive clod!

Re:This is great news. (1)

jkflying (2190798) | about a year and a half ago | (#42852737)

That Earth would repair itself?

Re:This is great news. (1)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about a year and a half ago | (#42852997)

Whoosh. Right over his head.

Re:This is great news. (2)

H0p313ss (811249) | about a year and a half ago | (#42853627)

You do realize that these arguments mean fuckall to Nature.

The earth will repair itself eventually, with or without us.

Mhm... but eventually in geological terms, so hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

Re:This is great news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42853753)

Surely from that point of view the Earth isn't even broken.

Re:This is great news. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42852255)

Perhaps it's entirely a natural occurence and that all the efforts were for nothing at all...

Re:This is great news. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42852341)

Yes, perhaps there is no physics and it's all unpredictable magic.

Re:This is great news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42853407)

I agree

Re:This is great news. (1)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | about a year and a half ago | (#42852401)

There's also a correlation between cosmic rays and the ozone hole. Just saying.

Re:This is great news. (1)

Ironix (165274) | about a year and a half ago | (#42852681)

There's also a correlation between cosmic rays and the ozone hole. Just saying.

There is also a correlation between Russia's population decline and the ozone hole. Just saying.

Re:This is great news. (2)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about a year and a half ago | (#42853019)

We're in the solar maximum...(do NOT link me the cme/flare study it's irrelevent) so the luminescence and irradiation are increased. So more solar wind AND a smaller hole. Your argument is not as it was intended.

Re:This is great news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42852535)

Perhaps this means that conservation efforts over the last decade have had effect?

Conservation? That's not the word I would have used.

We've reduced or eliminated the use of certain CFCs, e.g. R-12 (Freon) in automotive A/C and the propellant in aerosol spray cans, both since 1989; considerably longer than a decade.

No matter what the cause, it's good news that the hole seems to be shrinking.

Re:This is great news. (-1, Offtopic)

kupofatu (2837653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42852569)

http://www.cloud65.com/ [cloud65.com] upto I looked at the receipt ov $6404, I didnt believe that my best friend was trully bringing in money in their spare time from there pretty old laptop.. there mums best friend had bean doing this 4 less than eleven months and at present paid the morgage on there cottage and got a top of the range McLaren F1. read more at,

Non-story? (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about a year and a half ago | (#42851935)

Surely if it's been shrinking all this time then you could have the same story every day: "ozone hole smallest size since $date". Has it grown occasionally for some reason?

Re:Non-story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42852013)

If only one of the linked articles had some sort of graphical representation of the ozone hole to help you understand.

Re:Non-story? (3, Funny)

TarPitt (217247) | about a year and a half ago | (#42852669)

Graphical representation of a hole?

NO NO I will not post a link to GOATSE !!!

Must resist temptation

Re:Non-story? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42852035)

"The depletion in the Ozone layer is more prominent in the South Pole as compared to the Arctic Circle because of high wind speeds that results into a fast-rotating vortex of cold air which leads to lower temperatures."

Guessing the hole in bigger in winter.

Re:Non-story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42852045)

It probably varies in size due to centripetal force and seasonal proximity to the sun. And why not toss the Coriolis effect for good measure.

Re:Non-story? (5, Interesting)

Dan East (318230) | about a year and a half ago | (#42852047)

The ozone "hole" expands and contracts with atmospheric temperature. The colder it is, the thinner the ozone, and thus the larger the hole. So the size of the hole is both seasonal, and coupled to polar temperatures. I believe the hole is the smallest ever because the temperature has been warmer, not necessarily because less ozone is destroyed by man made chemicals.

Re:Non-story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42852101)

The ozone "hole" expands and contracts with atmospheric temperature. The colder it is, the thinner the ozone, and thus the larger the hole. So the size of the hole is both seasonal, and coupled to polar temperatures. I believe the hole is the smallest ever because the temperature has been warmer, not necessarily because less ozone is destroyed by man made chemicals.

Ozone holes in the north have been bigger, which seems to back up what youre saying

Re:Non-story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42852155)

.... shhhhhh! Don't let it get out that there can be benefits to a warmer globe!

Re:Non-story? (5, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#42852219)

Surely if it's been shrinking all this time then you could have the same story every day: "ozone hole smallest size since $date". Has it grown occasionally for some reason?

For reasons that are sufficiently messy that I certainly couldn't do them justice(and there really isn't any point in copy/pasting a pretend understanding from wikipedia and just wasting space) ozone levels vary considerably over time, both because of natural seasonal weather patterns and because of changes in the presence of various ozone-depleting synthetic compounds.

My understanding is that trends on atmospheric concentration of more or less all of the really nasty ozone-depleting compounds have been positive since regulation went into effect; but that the size and shape of the ozone hole has been a great deal more chaotic from season to season(shape counts, for our purposes, because ozone thinning over the antarctic is a bad sign; but the number of epidemiologists who care about penguin melanoma is limited, while ozone thinning over Australia is directly troublesome).

Re:Non-story? (1)

Swampash (1131503) | about a year and a half ago | (#42852441)

As a southerhemispherer I remember being able to go outside without sun protection. Because the sun protection was, you know, the upper atmosphere. No chance of that now.

Re:Non-story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42852975)

It hasn't been shrinking all this time - it's been growing at an alarming rate since the 70's, and only began slowing down (but still growing) in the late 90's after the use of CFCs was drastically reduced. (Well, it grows and shrinks in response to environmental factors, such as temperature, but under the same conditions from one year to the next it was getting larger so it was growth overall) In 2006 the hole was the largest it had been in recorded history.

So it's the smallest it's been in the last 10 years, but still larger than it was before then.

The LORD work's in misterius way's his wonder's to (0)

Kerstyun (832278) | about a year and a half ago | (#42851939)

o perform.

Tight hole (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42851953)

Hmmmmm small Ozone hole ?

Hope it's tight. Let's all have a gang bang.

10 year cycle? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42852025)

Interesting that the pictures show 2012 looks almost exactly the way it did in 2002, but since 2003 showed a much larger hole, perhaps 2013 will end up with an increased hole as well?

Says Fox News.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42852043)

Sean Hannity called, he wanted to remind you it was the smallest ozone hole over the entire century. And that the the definition of "hole" varies between measurement organizations.

Still freezing my butt off (-1)

MindPrison (864299) | about a year and a half ago | (#42852115)

..here in Scandinavia.

It's been colder and colder here in the South of Scandinavia, same thing with Europe afaik.
I've been hearing this global warming up to my ears since I was a kid (and thats a LOOOOONG time ago), and it's not warmer, but a WHOLE lot colder.
Here where I live, the neighbors tell me about fantastic summers for years, and that the last 3-4 years ICE-WINTERS has just been a freak occurrence, I'm not so sure anymore. Starting to regret buying a house over here...it's insanely cold each year.

Re:Still freezing my butt off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42852153)

you are confusing ozone with global warming, the two are separate issues

you are also under the guise of being able to tell weather-difference based on your memories

Re:Still freezing my butt off (1)

Vintermann (400722) | about a year and a half ago | (#42852295)

Rather than going by your intuition, maybe you should go to eklima [oslo.dnmi.no] , where you can access all climate data from Norwegian weather stations since 1901. It's not impossible that it should have gone the other way here compared to the globe as a whole, but I doubt it.

Re:Still freezing my butt off (4, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year and a half ago | (#42852373)

This demonstrates a problem seen on both sides of the climate change debate - people look at their short term local environment and extrapolate those experiences to the world as a whole without looking at actual relevant data.

Had a really hot summer? Boy, this global warming has gotten bad, it's going to wipe out humanity in a decade.

Terrible winter? Man, I'm tired of all those global warming alarmists - I wish it WAS warming!

But as far as the ozone hole goes... Given the very slow rate of exchange between the upper and lower atmosphere, it's hard to see how policy changes mainly implemented by western countries in the very recent past could fully explain this.

Re:Still freezing my butt off (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42852665)

It's called "global warming", not "local warming". It's quite possible, and indeed expected, that some places will get colder as the world as whole gets warmer. In particular, collapse of certain warm-water currents in the Atlantic are likely to make Britain quite inhospitably cold if the ocean gets a little warmer. So stop being an ignorant, self-centered fool and learn about the issues before making stupid statements in public. Attitudes like yours endanger everyone.

Re:Still freezing my butt off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42852687)

Do you know about the gulf-stream conveyor belt ? It is the principal cause of Europe pasts warmer winters, it used to take heat from America, move to Europe, give back the heat and flow back to America. If its model is correct, its acceleration is inversely proportional to the sea temperature variation. As the sea got warmer, that heat conveying belt slowed down giving Scandinavian colder winters and Canadian east of Manitoba warmer one.

Re:Still freezing my butt off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42852979)

The reduction of ozone over the poles has little to do with global warming. It has to do with artificial CFCs emitted into the atmosphere. Different issue.

And the predictions of global warming are not that every place in the world will get incrementally warmer. A lot of areas are predicted to get warmer, but the amount of precipitation (i.e. snow) will increase. It's called "average" global temperature for a reason. Inevitably there will be places that experience colder temperatures.

In other words ... (5, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about a year and a half ago | (#42852289)

... scientists recognized an environmental problem and demonstrated a clear link to human activity, the scientists told the politicians about it, the politicians acted, and now the problem's going away.

My God, this is terrible! We must ensure that no such thing ever happens again!

Re:In other words ... (2)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#42852621)

nah.... the denialist 'experts' will simply claim that a volcano... erm.... ate all the.... carbon dioxide.... an stuff

Re:In other words ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42853027)

My God, this is terrible! We must ensure that no such thing ever happens again!

...We are.

Re:In other words ... (2)

hairyfish (1653411) | about a year and a half ago | (#42854069)

Fuck big govt and their oppressive regulations. I much prefer skin cancer.

Great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42852371)

So when can I start using the cheaper freon again?

Assuming correlation is causation... (2)

renimar (173721) | about a year and a half ago | (#42852479)

Clearly, the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is helping close the ozone hole! Suck it, Al Gore!

(That's how it works, right?)

Meanwhile the Arctic Ozone hole (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42852577)

I'm not sure how that compare to this news

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/02/unprecedented-ozone-hole-opens-over-canadian-arctic/

cue global warming denialists.... (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#42852587)

...in 3.... 2.... 1...

Re:cue global warming denialists.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42853521)

Global warming is at BEST a hypothesis.

Get back to me when its cast as a reproducible law.. and not by simply tweaking computer models to get the results you want... and make sure it goes all the way back to the planets formation... not just 100 years of questionable recorded data.

That's how it works.. consensus is not part of it... no matter how many hack statistical only scientists clamoring for acceptance and a group hug say otherwise.

Blame it on global warming! (1)

mschaffer (97223) | about a year and a half ago | (#42852855)

After all, what does the data say? Higher temperatures, less Antarctic ozone? Looks like a correlation, and therefore....

damn ozone layer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42852957)

why don't we just nuke it like the good ole days

CFC ban yet another case of jumping to conclusions (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42852983)

First of all, there never was a "hole" [wikipedia.org] - a better term would be an "ozone reduction". Its cause remains unknown. There are many theories [redstate.com] , and the one exclusively blaming CFC's is made increasingly implausible by recent research [reason.com] , as well as the recent ozone increase. What is known is that the government intervention in banning CFC's had some small negative impact [mises.org] on the quality of life of almost everyone alive today. The effect of the ban on the ozone layer, if any, won't kick in until the CFC particles already released begin to exit the atmosphere many decades from now...

There are many natural cycles that affect this planet and this solar system, and modern science has not been around long enough to measure and fully understand all of them. However "we don't know" is not an acceptable answer to many people - they want a story that sounds good and fits their preconceived political beliefs...

--libman

Re:CFC ban yet another case of jumping to conclusi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42853187)

yeah my air conditioner does not freeze my nose hairs anymore, my quality of life is ruined.

Re:CFC ban yet another case of jumping to conclusi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42853279)

If you had asthma, and they made your aerosol medicine illegal (Primatine Mist) your quality of life would definitely be reduced. Because you spouted such malinformed arrogance on Slashdot, my quality of life is definitely reduced. Way to go. You wouldn't by chance be part of that 47% would you?

Re:CFC ban yet another case of jumping to conclusi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42854587)

I never said "ruined"; I said that "the government intervention in banning CFC's had some small negative impact on the quality of life". You have less choices in buying air conditioners, refrigerators, certain medical devices, etc - which means you either end up paying more or getting less. The same restriction applies to companies that produce / transport / sell refrigerated food, cool server farms, use industrial degreasing solvents, use fire suppression safety systems, etc, etc, etc - which means slightly higher prices for the consumers.

This is just one example of a government regulation damaging market optimization, and, when combined with all others, they have a great effect in total. You may be able to afford paying more for stuff, but that means you have less money left over to direct to more preferable ends (like perhaps philanthropy or environmental conservation). And many people in this world simply cannot afford higher prices, which has a much greater impact on their quality of life.

--libman

Re:CFC ban yet another case of jumping to conclusi (2)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about a year and a half ago | (#42853517)

zow, probably the best collection of reliable sources ever quoted.

Seriously - reason? mises? redstate!

Re:CFC ban yet another case of jumping to conclusi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42854483)

So only the sources that agree with you are "reliable"?

Way to keep yourself inside a bubble of socialist bias!

I had the same problem myself when I was younger. Going to a "public" (government-controlled) school and listening to gov-licensed media has this effect on most people. To my lasting shame, I voted for Al Gore in 2000, and even the Green Party candidate in 2004. But I did not remain ignorant forever. I've researched all sides of each issue, from economics to environmentalism, and gradually came to understand that most of what I was taught was inaccurate.

I suggest you spend more time studying the facts and less time rooting for your team, right or wrong. It won't be easy. Millions of people in the academia, media, and even big business benefit from gov interventionism, and (perhaps even subconsciously) are driven to perpetuate certain myths that maintain and expand gov power. As religious and nationalist myths start to lose their power, this power-hungry class is seeking out new, global bogeymen to use as enemies, with an environmental crisis constituting the perfect excuse. By scaring the public they can get popular support to do whatever they want - without rigorous scientific proof, and without a dispassionate cost-benefit analysis.

An honest person should have no value higher than the pursuit of the objective scientific truth.

So, without ad hominem attacks, can you dispute the factual accuracy of my statements?

--libman

Re:CFC ban yet another case of jumping to conclusi (1)

hamburger lady (218108) | about a year and a half ago | (#42854763)

wait, redstate isn't a science blog?

Sigh (5, Insightful)

RevDisk (740008) | about a year and a half ago | (#42853077)

I hate to even point this out, because idiots will claim I am a global warming denier, climate change denier or kicker of cute puppies...

But I really wish that the climate change folks would take a note from the whole ozone thing. CFCs and other contributory substances (ozone-depleting substances (ODS)) were proven to have an impact. CFCs were replaced with hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and other alternative solvents with minimal costs. And the problem was economically solved for the most part.

Folks proved what the problem was (ozone depletion), what was a very significant contributor (CFCs), how everything happened (in a scientific "can be repeated, with the same results every time"), set up accurate and provable models (Single Layer Isentropic Model of Chemistry And Transport (SLIMCAT), CLaMS (Chemical Lagrangian Model of the Stratosphere), etc), and how to economically mitigate the bad stuff by using less bad stuff. The last stage is arguably the most important. All of the climate change research and proof in the world is nice. But it doesn't mean jack if it doesn't produce economically acceptable alternatives.

X is bad? Fine. Accurately prove how they are bad, in a way that is relatively easy to proof in a repeatable way. Gimme alternatives that are viable (ie can be realistically implemented in a reasonable manner), that are economic (preferably cheaper, but no more than 5-10% more expensive) that are effective (preferably better, but no more than 5-10% less effiicient).

I spent time in former Soviet countries and third world countries. I'm aware of how bad pollution can be. It can be horribly nasty. I'm also not a moron, so I realize you have to be able to realistically solve the problem if you want to mitigate it. I'll bet myself $1 that I get called a climate denier, right wing puppy kicker or whatnot anyways.

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42853327)

I'll bet myself $1 that I get called a climate denier, right wing puppy kicker or whatnot anyways.

 
Nope, but you DID manage to get modded troll. I say you still win the $1.

Re:Sigh (0, Troll)

dunkelfalke (91624) | about a year and a half ago | (#42853555)

You are a denier. Because you put "economics" a.k.a short term profits first. Basically you say "If I cannot earn money polluting, fuck you".

History is full of people like you, screwing with environment for their short term profits, leading to a disaster in long term.

Re:Sigh (4, Informative)

radtea (464814) | about a year and a half ago | (#42854045)

You are a denier. Because you put "economics" a.k.a short term profits first. Basically you say "If I cannot earn money polluting, fuck you".

And the Lack of Reading Comprehension Award goes to the guy who wrote the above, putting words in the GP's mouth and then maligning them on the basis of that fantasy.

It's so much easier to win arguments with imaginary opponents who can be vilified for saying outrageous things.

With regard to economics: while it does not explain all of human behaviour, it is difficult to defend the hypothesis, beloved by Lefties in particular, that "economics doesn't matter".

Economics matters, and it is not "putting economics first" to say this, but rather recognizing that economics imposes constraints on any solution to the problem of anthropogenic climate change. The anti-AGW community are firmly convinced that the pro-AGW community consists solely of people like you, who think that the reality of AGW is somehow justification to impose your own anti-economic agenda on the rest of the world.

By responding as you are, you are playing exactly the role the anti-AGW community wants you to play, bolstering their support amongst the public, who will see you for what you are: a left-wing nutjob who has grabbed on to the AGW mantra as an excuse to further your political agenda, not because you care about the future of the planet (because as the GP correctly points out, any viable solution to AGW will have to take economic constraints into account, as as such people like you who deny economic constraints are important are actually an impediment to dealing with AGW.)

Re:Sigh (2, Insightful)

foobsr (693224) | about a year and a half ago | (#42854689)

economics imposes constraints on any solution to the problem of anthropogenic climate change

anthropogenic climate change imposes constraints on all solutions to the problems of economics

FTFY

CC.

Re:Sigh (1)

hairyfish (1653411) | about a year and a half ago | (#42854143)

Oh dear, the guy even spelt it out for you and you still got it wrong. He's not putting economics first, he is merely stating this as a fact of human nature. Take global warming out of it and think about any solution to any problem. For any solution to work, it has to be proven to work, and it has to make economic sense. If you don't believe that then please send me all your money right now and I'll save the world for you. I promise.

Re:Sigh (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year and a half ago | (#42854729)

He's not putting economics first

He does have it there as a hard constraint with numerical values and is using some sort of "I'm not saying ..." weasel bullshit to pretend it isn't.

It's just using one topic to attack another when you boil it down. I don't think it's reasonable to directly compare a small system over a short time period (ozone depletion each summer) to a global system considering effects over a timespan of decades.

Re:Sigh (1)

deimtee (762122) | about a year and a half ago | (#42855133)

And you are still missing the point that a solution has to be practical. Of course economics is a hard constraint, do you think you can fix things by singing kumbaya?
If you want to change things you need to be realistic, and economics is (amongst other things) the study of the allocation of resources.

Also he didn't claim they were equivalent problems.
He claimed that the ozone solutions were implemented because the science was sound, the theory was consistant, the experiments repeatable, and the solutions proposed were achievable within economic constraints.
He then suggested that AGW proponents would do better if they aimed towards the same standards.

Re:Sigh (1)

ankhank (756164) | about a year and a half ago | (#42854243)

> CFCs were replaced with hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) ...
> the problem was economically solved for the most part.

Excep that HCFC turns out to be more of a problem
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/September/25090702.asp [rsc.org]

HCFC Phaseout Schedule | Ozone Layer Protection - Regulatory ...
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/hcfc.html [epa.gov]
To learn more about the HCFC phaseout, including frequently asked questions, please visit this link.

Producing HCFC-22 also produces, as a byproduct, HCF-23.

Oops. oversight in the initial protocol? Or clever loophole-drafting?
China gets paid for destroying HCF-23.
And it hasn't been against the rules to produce more, to get paid more to destroy more of the stuff.
So they ramped up HCFC-22 production instead of going with alternatives that didn't make money quite so fast.

"China is, in fact, gaming the system today as we speak by
producing harmful HCFC-22 for the sole reason of destroying
HCF-23 by-product ..."
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg44428/html/CHRG-110hhrg44428.htm [gpo.gov]

China was very happy with that situation, but is quite unhappy with the next step, stopping the production completely:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-09/17/content_15761265.htm [chinadaily.com.cn]
read down the text beyond the self-congratulations to the part where they say the next step is, well, very, very difficult.

Yeah, giving up free money is always hard. Read the fine print -- more carefully ....

Re:Sigh (2)

thrich81 (1357561) | about a year and a half ago | (#42855275)

"Excep that HCFC turns out to be more of a problem
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/September/25090702.asp [rsc.org] [rsc.org]"
So where in the article you linked does it say that HCFCs are more of a problem than CFCs? All I could find was the following, "They replaced the older and even more ozone-damaging chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the 1990s, but were never meant to be permanent substitutes." No matter what happens with the HCFCs, it seems we are better off without the CFCs. Going to HCFCs seems to have at least bought us more time to implement truly benign substitutes.

Re:Sigh (5, Interesting)

radtea (464814) | about a year and a half ago | (#42854341)

X is bad? Fine. Accurately prove how they are bad, in a way that is relatively easy to proof in a repeatable way. Gimme alternatives that are viable (ie can be realistically implemented in a reasonable manner), that are economic (preferably cheaper, but no more than 5-10% more expensive) that are effective (preferably better, but no more than 5-10% less effiicient).

While I'm in agreement with this view, I'm also aware of how much messier the AGW situation is than the CFC situation was. Anything beyond "anthropogenic gases are probably adding about 0.2% (1.6 W/m**2) to the Earth's heat budget at the surface" is extremely model dependent, and models are just not that good at predicting the detailed response of such a complex system.

I am a computational physicist, and it is very clear after digging in to climate models a bit that climate models are not written by computational physicists, who typically have dealt with much simpler systems in much better controlled (and experimentally accessible) situations, which gives us a very healthy awareness of how inadequate our simulations are at capturing anything but the gross features of reality.

If a computational model of a radiation detector comes within 10% of reality you're generally doing pretty well, and radiation detectors of various kinds are about as simple as you can get in terms of physics.

So anyone who claims that climate models are adequate or even particularly useful as guides to policy response is likely not tightly coupled to reality. We don't really know what areas are likely to be affected by what kind of events. Even apparently simple things like an increase in hurricane force winds, or possibly an increase in the number of hurricanes, are hotly debated. No one, to the best of my knowledge, predicted ocean acidification as a likely outcome of increasing levels of atmospheric CO2, but this is likely going to be one of the more significant impacts. And so on.

As such, it behooves us to pursue a number of policies that won't address any specific threat, but which will a) reduce human greenhouse gas emissions and b) increase our ability to respond the climate-driven humanitarian disasters. In the former category would be nuclear power development and other green power sources, and in the latter things like increased funds put aside for international relief via existing organizations.

These positive actions have zero political support, however: people who are beating the drums regarding AGW policy are almost uniformly putting it in terms of controls and limits and restrictions on other people, which we know from far too much history never ends well, and certainly never solves the problem it was supposedly intended to address.

Re:Sigh (4, Informative)

rastoboy29 (807168) | about a year and a half ago | (#42854479)

It has been proven beyond a *reasonable* doubt.

The reason banning CFC's was so easy was because it was a relatively small target, and replacement technology was almost immediately available.

The reason there is so much noise about climate is because it affects *everything* and there is no cut and dried solution available.  Entrenched interests have been pouring money into FUD on the scientists themselves for years for that reason.  And because they are suicidal, apparently...

Re:Sigh (1)

hamburger lady (218108) | about a year and a half ago | (#42854665)

it's a different situation with climate change. the solution to using the CFCs that were destroying ozone was just to use a different set of chemicals that were already in the can anyways. it was literally the easiest environmental crisis we've ever had to deal with.

climate change is a whole different kettle of fish. if you had any idea how insanely cheap fossil fuels have been (and still are) you wouldn't be asking for economic alternatives.

Re:Sigh (1)

thrich81 (1357561) | about a year and a half ago | (#42855229)

"CFCs were replaced with hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and other alternative solvents with minimal costs. And the problem was economically solved for the most part. " -- Not if you were to believe the wailing and crying at the time the CFC phaseouts were being discussed. It was going to be the end of the civilized world because there were "no substitutes for CFCs". We'd all lose our air conditioners and refrigerators, leading to general collapse. Exactly the same arguments were made (probably by the same people) when the phaseout of leaded gasoline was started -- "we'd have to give up the internal combustion engine", "the environuts were forcing civilization back to postindustrial times!", "Oh, the humanity!". Both of those phaseouts were conducted with minimal suffering as I recall and civilization did not collapse. I realize that fossil fuels are a bigger issue than CFCs and leaded gasoline were, but the alarmists who are crying about the economic costs of change have cried wolf at least twice now in my remembrance, they have lost credibility now because of it.

Most probably... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42853147)

CFCs compounds have absolutely nothing to do with the annual ozone layer depletion above Antartica, which results from the combined effect of the Antartic Vortex, which, each winter, insulates Antartica from the Ozone-rich tropical air during several months, and Ozone instability does the rest, until the sunset.

The Ozone layer itself is a red herring, since technically it is not a protection from, but the result of the interaction between solar UV radiation and dioxygen molecules in the upper atmosphere. Ozone is an unstable compound, which disappears naturally in the absence of incoming solar UV.

The annual "hole" over Antartica is that zone where Ozone layer concentration falls beyond its average during the long Antartica winter, but never to zero, if you will notice the units on the nice photos published every year in september-october near sunset for better effect.

Within weeks after sunset, the Antartica vortex weakens, allowing the Ozone-rich air from tropics to enter, and soon, there is no more "Ozone hole". This typically chaotic phenomenon has been occuring forever, as far as we know, because it has been observed since observations began, which was well before CFCs were even invented, let alone commercialized on an industrial scale.

The Ozone scam, because scientifically, it doesn't stand one minute to scrutinity, has been created by none other than... Al Gore, who managed to create that scare by which the UN body in charge of supervising CFCs for "Ozone layer protection" and organising the CFCs prohibition was created.

That was a total success for Al Gore, who immediately thereafter renamed that organization "IPCC" and went on to an ongoing campaign aiming at disupting energy supply by way of taxing "carbon" and the like.

You are witnessing a purely political scam at work.

I predict we will never see any significant reduction of that famous "Ozone hole", because it is simply a natural, seasonal occurence, and its aspect will always vary from year to year, like it always did.

As a side note, after years of fudging temperature data, the divorce between reality and "adjusted" measurements by the Global Warming propaganda club (always the same persons) is becoming more and more obvious every year. That other scam is not going to stay very long either. What could be the next one ? There are plenty of possibilities, that will be amusing to see which one they pick...

Thankyou (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42853151)

Peducah, KY, USA. Slashdot mods or mod bots may redact this comment at will. God Bless.

The return of McDonald's styrofoam boxes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42853311)

This is great news, once Macca's brings them back my kids will be able to play with all the great styrofoam happy meal boxes. Looking forward to those UFO boxes.

No it'[s not! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42853333)

"...The decrease in size of the hole is probably the result of reduction in the concentration of CFCs..."

We know little if anything about the actual reactions in the stratosphere. It's expensive to monitor them. SO we don't.

If you want to know why CFCs are banned, take a look at the dates on the freon patent. You will find that it was just about to expire, and DuPont were just about to lose a very profitable chemical division. Suddenly, they switched round to supporting a ban, and then the world couldn't make Freon at all. We had to use less effective substitutes, and you won't be surprised to find that DuPont had all those tied up with nice new patents. Applied for a couple of years before DuPont's sudden reversal. Big Chemistry working with Big Green? Where have I seen that before?

Eek! The sky is rising, the sky is rising! (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | about a year and a half ago | (#42853813)

This is going to upset the alarmists.

Ozone is a Greenhouse gas (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42853893)

The smaller the ozone hole over the antarctic, the more infrared is reflected back to the Earth and not into space. So people who accuse others of being climate change deniers, should look to mirror and do not deny that the Montreal Protocol is a major factor in global warming.

Why does it have to 'ozone' or 'climate change'? (2)

fygment (444210) | about a year and a half ago | (#42854417)

Reducing CFC's was a good thing regardless of ozone holes, etc. They are toxic and bad for the environment, period, ozone holes or no.
Reducing the carbon footprint is also a good thing as it means using things efficiently vice producing so much waste, regardless of climate effects.
Why do we need a 'spin' to somehow make it real?
Inefficiency leads to waste leads to rapid depletion leads to the disappearance of valuable resources.

Re:Why does it have to 'ozone' or 'climate change' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42854939)

You are wrong. CFCs are chemically stable, non-toxic and non-flammable.
There only so many permutations possible in chemistry, and CFCs are truly a wonder of chemistry.
Alternatives are only partially up to be replacements, and are more than often corrosive, toxic, unstable.
Banning CFCs was at best a big mistake, if not outright a crime.
It is inevitable that CFCs prohibition is ended at some point, because it simply makes no sense at all.

the Smallest Ozone Hole In a Decade (1)

Phizzle (1109923) | about a year and a half ago | (#42855131)

I believe the correct scientific term is The Global Puckering!
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...