×

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!

Ozone Layer Improving Faster Than Expected

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the go-ozone-go-ozone dept.

325

SpaceAdmiral writes "Since the implementation of the Montreal Protocol, which limited ozone-destroying gasses like CFCs, the Earth's ozone layer has been recovering. However, new studies show that the ozone in the lower stratosphere is actually recovering faster than the Montreal Protocol alone can explain." From the article: "It's a complicated question. CFCs are not the only things that can influence the ozone layer; sunspots, volcanoes and weather also play a role. Ultraviolet rays from sunspots boost the ozone layer, while sulfurous gases emitted by some volcanoes can weaken it. Cold air in the stratosphere can either weaken or boost the ozone layer, depending on altitude and latitude. These processes and others are laid out in a review just published in the May 4th issue of Nature: 'The search for signs of recovery of the ozone layer' by Elizabeth Westhead and Signe Andersen."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

325 comments

This brought to you by... (1, Insightful)

Saven Marek (739395) | more than 7 years ago | (#15414999)

This brought to you by the same people who INSIST global warming is man-made and it's time to kill our economy by placing unnecessary restrictions on it.

The world can take a lot more than we small humans are dishing out to it. The oceans alone can absorb 100 times more CO2 than we have ever pumped into the atmosphere without taking a blink. This is just more proof of nature's resilience. Don't bow to the environmentalist hype machine.

Re:This brought to you by... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15415161)

"The world can take a lot more than we small humans are dishing out to it. The oceans alone can absorb 100 times more CO2 than we have ever pumped into the atmosphere without taking a blink. This is just more proof of nature's resilience. Don't bow to the environmentalist hype machine."

And what happens when the oceans abrorb that CO2, they become more warmer.....
Thus creating even more hurricanes and storms and killing more and more sealife.

THe ozone layer is recovering becouse of restrictions. Are you actually saying that we should go back to the old days, when the ozone layer was getting destroyd?

Re:This brought to you by... (1)

Fire Dragon (146616) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415215)

The world can take a lot more than we small humans are dishing out to it. The oceans alone can absorb 100 times more CO2 than we have ever pumped into the atmosphere without taking a blink. This is just more proof of nature's resilience. Don't bow to the environmentalist hype machine.

I have agree with you in here. There aren't really anything that nature couldn't handle.

It's these selfish enviromentalists that wish that nature would act on their will and on their controll and not to extinct most of the harmful species on earth. All they want to save is their own but, not the nature.

Re:This brought to you by... (5, Interesting)

ccarson (562931) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415388)

Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 10 years. I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in sub-atomic physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be effected by magnetic fields. I keep hearing about the increased activity of our Sun (it's been getting hotter) and I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth and the Sun is spewing out more heat, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this? Besides, how can you explain the recent same climate changes on Jupitor [space.com] and Mars. I've been bouncing this idea in my head for a while now and I can't see why this MAY not be true.

Unexplained phenomenons (4, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415001)

We're playing with chemicals, eating toxic foods, messing with nature's balance, wasting or restoring ozone layer beyond our comprehension, using electronics that cause tumors and other illnesses... and in this mess somewhere, the bare truth shines:

we know shit

Re:Unexplained phenomenons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15415060)

Everyone knows shit.
If only we knew what shit was true.

Re:Unexplained phenomenons (0)

PakProtector (115173) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415070)

Zen is a phenonmenon of gold and bullshit. Before you understand it, it's like gold. After you understand it, it's like bullshit.

Re:Unexplained phenomenons (2, Funny)

letto (970000) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415112)

Exactly.
But why do these guys try to "heal" the ozone layer? Didn't they see "The Matrix" or Highlander III. If these guys knew shit they would destroy the ozon layer and build a black cloud around the world.

Then surrounded by thick smoke , gases and eating toxic food we will find ourselves in a medium in wich we would really evolve. Maby even in some MutantX kind of way!?

Well, all those people who have nothing better to do than mindlessly walk around in the open all day as if the sun was there to shine on they're asses wouldn't be too happy about it. But this wouldn't be a problem for us slashdotters who sit in front of the computer wouldn't it??

Re:Unexplained phenomena (2, Interesting)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415180)

Then surrounded by thick smoke , gases and eating toxic food we will find ourselves in a medium in wich we would really evolve.

I'm sorry, I must have got something wrong...
How exactly does this differ from our current situation?

Smog excluded, this is what every room with a smoker present looks like to me.

Re:Unexplained phenomena (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15415360)

this is what every room with a smoker present looks like to me.

Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel....

Waste of a perfectly good human carcass if ya ask me.

Re:Unexplained phenomenons (3, Insightful)

Atario (673917) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415138)

We're playing with chemicals
I play with chemicals all day: molecular oxygen and nitrogen [wisc.edu] , carbon dioxide [ghgonline.org] , various hydrocarbon compounds [usda.gov] , proteins [exploratorium.edu] , and of course, the deadly dihydrogen monoxide [snopes.com] .
eating toxic foods
You eat toxic foods? How are you still alive? What are all the toxins anyway? Can you give me a list? No? Huh...

Re:Unexplained phenomenons (2, Interesting)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415183)

While you happily play with words like parent poster were a paranoid, anybody else can read interesting stuff like:

However, nearly all fish and shellfish contain traces of mercury. For most people, the risk from mercury by eating fish and shellfish is not a health concern. Yet, some fish and shellfish contain higher levels of mercury that may harm an unborn baby or young child's developing nervous system. The risks from mercury in fish and shellfish depend on the amount of fish and shellfish eaten and the levels of mercury in the fish and shellfish. Therefore, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are advising women who may become pregnant, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and young children to avoid some types of fish and eat fish and shellfish that are lower in mercury.

(source) [fda.gov]

Re:Unexplained phenomenons (1, Insightful)

Shisha (145964) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415273)

That's exactly the point (in disguise). The GP is clearly either making fun of us, or he's one of the paranoid tinfoil hat prone enviromentalists. Anything is toxic in the wrong amounts! E.g. a glass of wine is fine and yet you can die of alcohol poisoning. Hence the adage "everything in moderation". Hence even a small number of "the paranoid tinfoil hat prone enviromentalists" are good for the society.

Re:Unexplained phenomenons (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415335)

The GP is clearly either making fun of us, or he's one of the paranoid tinfoil hat prone enviromentalists.

If there's one thing I certainly don't like, that's labels.

Re:Unexplained phenomenons (1)

Lusa (153265) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415252)

Most of us probably eat something that is mildly toxic and we're unaware of it because our bodies will handle it. Increase the amounts though and it would be different. Caffeine springs to mind as one of the obvious common ingredients.

Re:Unexplained phenomenons (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415316)

You eat toxic foods? How are you still alive? What are all the toxins anyway? Can you give me a list? No? Huh...

Why would you say "No" before I get a chance to answer. I've in fact researched this in great detail, and I could give you a list of food that have adverse affect on health you eat every day: fuzzy drinks an chewing gums with aspartame, snacks with sodium glutamate, preservatives, margarine (aka plastic butter) and so on and so on.

Re:Unexplained phenomenons (1)

Atario (673917) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415411)

I've in fact researched this in great detail, and I could give you a list of food that have adverse affect on health
Ohh, adverse effect. Like contributing to complications of certain pathological conditions or something. I could have sworn you said "toxic". As in poisonous. Silly me!

Re:Unexplained phenomenons (1)

BeanahVulgaris (669661) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415394)

Aspartame- http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/aspartame.h tml [westonaprice.org] Carrageenan- claimed to inhibit absorption of certain minerals (e.g. potassium), and to induce gastro-intestinal discomfort in some people (wikipedia) Polydextrose- it is recommended by some experts that it not be given to children [1]. Despite these warnings, Polydextrose is a key ingredient in many popular children's cereals such as Fruity Pebbles. Soy Lecithin- http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/lecithin.html [westonaprice.org] (just read the article) High Fructose Corn Syrup (big one!!!)- http://www.westonaprice.org/motherlinda/cornsyrup. html [westonaprice.org] http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/highfructos e.html [westonaprice.org] And these are just the ones we digest on a daily basis! 1. http://www.healthyeatingadvisor.com/Healthy_Eating _Tips_-healthy-eating-tips-ezine-9.html [healthyeatingadvisor.com] and go read this just for fun :) http://www.westonaprice.org/causticcommentary/cc20 04wi.html [westonaprice.org] Well.. for my single self i submit to the world of fruits, veggies, and lots of fish! mmmm fresh sushi!!! But the great thing about our bodies.. we can deal with these toxins.. the bad thing is can we deal with HOW our bodies decide to deal with it after 50+ years of exposure.

Boy the mods.. (-1, Flamebait)

Vlad2.0 (956796) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415182)

...were really on the ball when they marked you "Insightful" all the way to +5. Maybe we should all just kill ourselves. That way we can't do anything bad, ever.

I get the whole green/liberal/whatever slant to Slashdot. But seriously, this kind of shit post is just stupid. (And I realize that by calling something what it is on Slashdot, I have to pay for it with karma). An insightful comment would have been an a comment that offered a deeper understanding into what was going on or perhaps a suggestion of what is causing it to restore itself faster than expected.

Note that neither this post, nor the parent post, is insightful. Infact, if more of you retards did your job right (and some of you really, really do do good jobs), this kind of stuff would be marked troll. (This post included, although I could perhaps argue that I am giving mods some insight).

Re:Unexplained phenomenons (1)

sarragorn (654091) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415196)

i'm under the impression that after the recent censoring scandal with the us gov and the guy with the warming warning, the propaganda machine is out to tell us that we gots to chill, move on, everything is ok...

Re:Unexplained phenomenons (4, Funny)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415203)

Actually, it has been mainly thoguh the No Atmospheric Layer Left Behind program that the Ozone Layer has improved as rapidly as it has.

Re:Unexplained phenomenons (1, Interesting)

wjcofkc (964165) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415212)

"We're playing with chemicals, eating toxic foods, messing with nature's balance, wasting or restoring ozone layer beyond our comprehension, using electronics that cause tumors and other illnesses..."

This is called trial and error. It is a driving force behind micro-evolution and macroscopic-evolutionary systems such as business, society, politics, etc...

Often times, even very smart human beings must behave in counter-productive error in order to achieve a new understanding of progress.

So yes, as a whole, we, the people of Earth are doing some very stupid and all around ignorant things. We are currently in the infancy of finally appreciating the error and gravity of many contemporary ways.

In time, we will look back upon this age and say, "How foolish we were playing with all those chemicals, disregarding nature, and not to mention: How did humans survive past twenty ingesting all of the toxic chemical-laden so called processed foods? And what was up with all those automobiles burning all that fossil fuel over all that time? My god, it actually rained acid back then!"

It is through these trials with their capacity for error that we learn what to do and what not to do.

When I was three, I put my hand on an electric stove the moment it reverted from red to black in order to see if it was immediately cool at that point. Well, it wasn't. A trip to the hospital and weeks with a hand wrapped in gauze later, I had learned something new and beneficial, and I learned through ignorance and error.

This is just how the game is played, that's all.

William

in other words.. (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415236)

In other words, the reason we, "Know Shit" is because we wallow in it on our way to greater understanding of how things like nature works and how we can reform our technology to avoid doing things like burning holes in the atmosphere and irradiating ourselves.

If you are going to do something, it is best to know what it takes to screw up your endeavor before approaching sucess.

Re:Unexplained phenomenons (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415324)

This is called trial and error.

When a chemical flagged as poisonous by the state based on solid scientific research is later flagged as "ok to eat and drink every day" because of corporate pressure, I don't call it trial and error.

Funny thing is this happens for a lot of what we use, eat, live in in the present days. It's called greed dude.

Re:Unexplained phenomenons (1)

kdemetter (965669) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415352)

Indeed , tha'ts not trail and error . Trail and error would be : a lot of people eat the poisonous chemical , they get sick and die , and there's is a huge investigation to determine what killed them . Then the press gets all over it , and uncover a huge scandal. Wich would then serve as an example to other cases , wich means the trial and error is a success ( at the costs of lives , of course ) Or something like that ( depends on the power of that coporation )

Re:Unexplained phenomenons (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415377)

Trail and error would be : a lot of people eat the poisonous chemical , they get sick and die , and there's is a huge investigation to determine what killed them .

Except if the symptoms are commonly misidagnosed and hardly traced back to the original cause. Really the issue is highly complicated, and getting kinda OT.

Re:Unexplained phenomenons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15415396)

So uhh... does this mean that Al Gore was not cereal when he said we're gonna die in 10 years?

Re:I thought it was explained? (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415419)

Since we have reduced CFC's in the past 20 years one would assume it would do something.

You know... We don't use CFC in our hair spray, styrofoam, air conditioners, and so on anymore.

Considering we've cut back so much... Wouldn't you think that would explain the ozone recovering?

That are we have more pirates these days.

science wrong so science wins (2, Insightful)

daveb (4522) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415012)

ok - so if I read this right it's saying that things aren't going as predicted. the implied message seems to be something like "science got it wrong" - but the whole point of science is to improve knowledge. That point, the essential element of science, is that we do NOT know it all and seek to improve.

Look - the chance of everything changing EXACTLY as predicted (by anyone) is almost nil. so headlines will always read:

XXXX is going BETTER/WORSE than predicted.

Really - nothing to see here - please keep moving

Re:science wrong so science wins (5, Insightful)

xiphoris (839465) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415081)

ok - so if I read this right it's saying that things aren't going as predicted. the implied message seems to be something like "science got it wrong" - but the whole point of science is to improve knowledge

Part of the problem with this system is that things like the Montreal Protocol are not science. It aims to solve a problem that might exist with remedies that might fix it. Note the usage of the world "explains" instead of "predicts". Most scientific theories are like economics: they can 'explain' plenty, but they can't really predict anything. Ultimately, all this talk about the weather is not science because we can't do experiments. There is simply no way to do scientific experiments with the global climate, and so theories about it don't quite make it all the way.

Using such theories to make worldwide policy is not exactly scientific when there is no actual evidence they have the verified power of prediction.

Re:science wrong so science wins (1)

xiphoris (839465) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415083)

Most scientific theories are like economics: they can 'explain' plenty, but they can't really predict anything.

Sorry, I meant to say scientific theories about the weather, not all theories. There's a reason weathermen have such a bad track record =) Quantum mechanics is quite good, however, in predicting things successfully ;]

Re:science wrong so science wins (3, Insightful)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415109)

I don't accept this simplistic formula, that science is only science if it involves experimentation. There are plenty of knowledge-creating practices that I would describe as "scientific" that do no use laboratory or strictly experimental methods: meteorology and climateology are two of them, as are different types of evolutionary and behavioral sciences (some animal behavior study is lab-based, but the more important work is field work.) Observing patterns and creating models based on observed patterns, and making predictions based on those models, is, as far as I'm concern, a scientific posture.

And the "verification" is the same as it would be for a laboratory model: the model needs to explain the extant data, whether laboratory-produced or gathered from the field. Using models to make policy based on field-gathered data is substantially more "scientific" than using wishful thinking based on economic self-interest.

Re:science wrong so science wins (2, Insightful)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415308)

"Observing patterns and creating models based on observed patterns, and making predictions based on those models, is, as far as I'm concern, a scientific posture."

Not really relevant what you (or I) think is a "scientific posture". This appears to be a conflation on your part of two definitions of the word science.

Webster's:

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. 4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

The scientific method requires a testable hypothesis. One cannot do this with weather, as indicated by a predecessor post. Weather can fall into 4, 5 or 6, not 1 (because we don't know the generalized laws), 2 (because we can't experiment on a sufficient scale) or 7 (because it ain't precise).

Re:science wrong so science wins (2, Funny)

sahrss (565657) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415131)

Oops mis-clicked my mod on you as Redundant when I wanted Insightful...hopefully this post clears the mod and I get modded down for being dumb.

Re:science wrong so science wins (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15415149)

The issue isn't that science isn't perfect.

The issue is that the whole ozone layer problem became politicized. An international treaty was made before the problem was well understood. Everyone just assumed the worst, and the treaty turned out to be overkill.

The people who were economically affected, which includes almost everyone, might not be amused. Even criminal codes may have to be adjusted (for example, should it be a felony to discharge R-12 or R-134a?). This is all because the environmentalists got on their high horse and gambled. And they were wrong.

This is very significant because in the global warming debate, credibility of the groups making dire claims is of great significance. Perhaps the #1 reason the US doesn't follow programs like the Kyoto Treaty is because of the lack of trust of the environmentalist political movement. Noone trusts them to tell the truth. Everyone assumes that environmentalists follow the philosophy: "the ends justify the means."

Re:science wrong so science wins (3, Interesting)

malsdavis (542216) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415156)

I think its all about 'margin of error'. Predictions may have a 1%, 5% or even 15% margin of error. The complex nature of ozone layer recovery (like all climate predictions) means the error margin is bigger than say predicting radioactive decay (which has a very small but still definate error margin). What pisses me off is when idiots (normally with vested interests) take that 10% possible margin of error and try to pretend it means that the theory could have a 100% margin of error. As a very small group of certain 'so called scientists' are still trying to do with global warming.

Re:science wrong so science wins (2, Insightful)

Hao Wu (652581) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415264)

With most things, there is a price to being right or wrong.

I think that many people feel upset or offended that science naturally dissociates itself from such consequences.

They got it wrong from the beginning (0, Troll)

javaDragon (187973) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415015)

Well, the ozone layer is not "recovering" because it was never damaged in the first place. Like they say in TFA, the stratospheric ozone status is influenced by large scale factors such as sun light, atmosphere temperature and chemicals introduced by volcanoes.

Ozone is chiefly created in the hot and well lit tropical atmosphere, from where it conveyed natural up to the poles. Ozone is a very unstable chemical which is rapidly eliminated.

The place where the famous "ozone hole" is observed is on top of Antartica, during the winter, when the atmosphere, cold (it's basically night during 6 months), is isolated from the rest of the world by the Antartica vortex. The ozone is then naturally depleted until spring breaks, which will open atmospheric circulation again and fill the "hole" in a few weeks at most.

The "ozone hole" is therefore a perfectly natural phenomenon, and no amount of Montreal-like measures will change that. No wonder those predictions show completely wrong, which is in essence the really important message of the article.

Maybe we can go back to using CFCs now than the hysteria is over, for CFCs are really a chemical wonder, stable and with unmatched thermodynamic properties.

Re:They got it wrong from the beginning (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15415038)

Thanks, but I'll take scientific research over seemingly unfounded Slashdot postings any day.

Re:They got it wrong from the beginning (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15415047)

The world isn't black and white, the fact that CFC's break down the ozone layer doesn't mean that other factor don't also play a part and the fact that other factors influence ozone doesn't mean that CFC's don't break down the ozone layer.

Re:They got it wrong from the beginning (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15415055)

Sure, it's all natural - the same way that CO2 emissions are increasing naturally. It's all caused by squids rearranging silt deep in the ocean. They'll eventually move it back were it belongs and the CO2 levels will go down again. So don't worry, just drive your SUVs, every problem which is related to "nature" will fix itself automatically. Because if it won't it would just be very inconvenient. And we don't like to worry about inconvenient things now, do we?

Of course this brain-dead theory has about as much basis in actual science as yours. If you don't believe the measurements indicating that the ozone hole was increasing (back when it was) why do you believe the measurements now that it is decreasing?

Re:They got it wrong from the beginning (1)

sa1lnr (669048) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415057)

Did you read the article? "It concludes that about half of the recent trend is due to CFC reductions."

Re:They got it wrong from the beginning (5, Informative)

JasonAWallwork (620569) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415077)

It's not like CFCs are fine now according to the article,

In the upper stratosphere (above roughly 18 km), ozone recovery can be explained almost entirely by CFC reductions. "Up there, the Montreal Protocol seems to be working," says co-author Mike Newchurch of the Global Hydrology and Climate Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

And later in the same article:

Sorting out cause and effect is difficult, but a group of NASA and university researchers may have made some headway. Their new study, entitled "Attribution of recovery in lower-stratospheric ozone," was just accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. It concludes that about half of the recent trend is due to CFC reductions.

Secondly, the Montreal Protocol was about the ozone depletion in other areas like Northern Europe and Canada, not just the hole over Antactica.

If one wants to argue that ozone depletion was nothing to worry about or some kind of myth, one needs to refer to sources beyond this article since that's not what it says.

Re:They got it wrong from the beginning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15415282)

Secondly, the Montreal Protocol was about the ozone depletion in other areas like Northern Europe and Canada, not just the hole over Antactica.

Funny you mention that. I never heard an answer for that very simple question posed in some scientific magazine waay back in the 80s. If CFCs are responsible for that 'hole' and more than 90% of it (and pretty much any industrially used chemical) are used in the northern hemisphere, why then is the hole x times larger at the south pole? IMO, the 'ozone hole' might just be the biggest pile of bullshit in the history of science.

Brewer-Dobson circulation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15415374)

Funny you mention that. I never heard an answer for that very simple question posed in some scientific magazine waay back in the 80s. If CFCs are responsible for that 'hole' and more than 90% of it (and pretty much any industrially used chemical) are used in the northern hemisphere, why then is the hole x times larger at the south pole? IMO, the 'ozone hole' might just be the biggest pile of bullshit in the history of science.

I agree that the logic is lacking. Brewer-Dobson [wikipedia.org] and other circulation patterns don't allow much mixing of atmospheric gases between the northern and southern hemispheres. And the isolation of the polar stratospheric clouds within the polar vortex during the winter (when the hole appears) only makes the argument harder to swallow: it seems that ozone in the antarctic stratosphere is more sensitive to local conditions than to anything in the US and Europe.

Add to that the acknowledged lack of an ability to project ozone depletion, and you simply cannot claim that "the ozone hole is the result of CFCs from industrialization":

The rate of decline in stratospheric ozone at midlatitudes has slowed; hence, the projections of ozone loss made in the 1994 Assessment are larger than what has actually occurred.
-- Source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/1998/exec utive_summary.html [noaa.gov]

It sounds more than a little like the global warming fiasco to me.

Shocking news: Ozone hole to disappear (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15415022)

How can we help, what can we do to protect it?

The Green Brigade will be foaming at the mouth (4, Interesting)

bheer (633842) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415024)

but this is how science progresses. Wherever you see a scientist take a stand saying, "hmm, that's odd, I wonder why that happened" there's a chance that real discovery and a real increase in our understanding can happen.

People who trot out wildly extrapolated results from global warming simulations ("OMG NY will under water by 2100!") sound to me like the same people who predicted city-sized computers back in the 50s because there was no way their simulations could have predicted microelectronics.

Climate is a complex system with many variables, human output being only one of them. Frankly, I've always held the greens would have a much better case if they focused on quality-of-life improvements brought about by cleaner air than by trying to create artificial energy regulations in the name of global warming (which *is* happening, but it doesn't necessarily follow that humans are the sole factor).

But hey, there's a reason green and left politics go together-- sticking it to big industry is a good way of sticking it to the Man.

Re:The Green Brigade will be foaming at the mouth (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15415100)

How did I know there'd be some rightwing nutcase jumping on this as some kind of vindication that idiots like Michael Chricton should be listened re: global warming and climate change?

Here's a thought for you - try reading the article. You'll notice that the vast majority of ozone is concentrated in the upper stratosphere above 18 km, and this is reacting exactly as predicted by current models. It is only in a small band of the lower stratosphere that improvements are being seen that have surpassed predictions.

This doesn't mean the science on reducing levels of CFC's is wrong. It certainly doesn't mean that the completely different topic of climate change is something that should be ignored.

Don't be an idiot, please. We have way too many of them.
(PS. If you'd really like to learn something current and accurate about climatology of all sorts, you should visit www.realclimate.org - it's a site that is run by climatologists to educate and inform. You may actually want to understand what you're talking about before spouting off...)

Re:The Green Brigade will be foaming at the mouth (1)

bheer (633842) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415155)

It's interesting that you see me as a right-wing nutcase screaming vindication. All I'm pointing out is that:

- global warming is real
- that humans are the sole or even the primary cause is disputable
- there's a lot we don't know about climate science (and complex systems in general) and the more we know the more progress is made

If this makes me an 'idiot' then I'm proud to be one.

And oh, about Realclimate... I do read it, but as a non-expert I am not qualified to comment on their results. As a computer professional (who deals with non-linear systems and has to use simulations himself) however I do have *big* problems with overextrapolation: the sort of studies that give us 'Manhattan under water by 2100'. Now I know in many cases that's not science but sensational reporting, but if Greens like to use sensationalism to their advantage when pushing their agenda, they ought not be surprised that their opponents do the same when a favorable bit of news comes by.

In any case, the bigger point is that climate research is of significant political interest-- for Greens and big industry alike. If you think the IPCC operates in a realm of pure science with zero politics then you are seriously deluded.

Climatologists therefore have a responsibility to make sure their research is used sensibly, instead much of their work (especially their worst-case extrapolations) are routinely used by the Green Brigade as a buttress to appeal to protectionist politicians to create artificial energy regimes (Kyoto, something France and Germany are _far_ away from adhering to) which IMO is a LOUSY idea from a economics POV.

PS. I wonder why you have to post as Anonymous Coward for this? /. moderators are usually quite kind to pro-Green posters.

Re:The Green Brigade will be foaming at the mouth (1)

Vancorps (746090) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415157)

By your words we should wait until the water has already risen to obvious levels before we take action. That sounds to me like a Katrina style disaster. People predicted a terrible hurricane would come but in the end they weren't prepared because there was no "hard" evidence.

It's the same deal with global warming. It is happening, that has never been questioned. The question is simply how much of a role humans play, no one factor plays a sole role in it but humans certainly do have the power to affect it.

You're right about environmentalists focusing on quality of life though. It speaks to more people readily but it would still involve energy regulations since an unregulated industry led to the lake michigan disaster. How can a lake catch on fire? Honestly thats insane and it was an obvious problem but in the name of progress it was allowed to continue until finally a very public disaster occurred which woke everyone else up. At what point do we stop waiting for disaster to happen and start pro-actively taking measures to prevent them?

With all that said, I'll add one more thing, climate is indeed a complex system so why are we pumping crap into the air making it even more so?

Re:The Green Brigade will be foaming at the mouth (1)

bheer (633842) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415294)

> That sounds to me like a Katrina style disaster.

Katrina was a Cat5 over the Gulf of Mexico. It weakened and actually became a Cat4 and weakening when it hit NOL . The "water" problem due to Katrina was an engineering problem-- the levees broke in a city with significant bits underwater. Also, re hurricanes, the conservative scientific view (insofar I read realclimate right) is that Global Warming does not cause hurricanes but it does make any formed hurricanes more severe because hurricanes thrive on the warmer water global warming's causing.

There's also the bigger point that as human beings build ever-more-populous cities on more square miles of this earth, any natural disaster will impact more lives and cost more money than before. Imagine a Tunguska-style event in the tri-state area!

Anyway, I don't advocate waiting for the 'waters to rise' before doing something. And reducing atmospheric/biospheric pollution is a laudable goal even if global warming were not happening. Also, 'artificial energy regulations' was a poor choice of words on my part -- regulating energy providers is definitely necessary in the interests of public safety. I *am* against artificially created and regulated energy markets, though-- especially when it turns out that those energy markets are fun to sign but difficult to implement [guardian.co.uk] .

> With all that said, I'll add one more thing, climate is indeed a complex system so why are we pumping crap into the air making it even more so?

Because pumping less crap into the air would reduce our standard of living? For example, the US consumed ~100 quad BTUs of energy in 2003. By contrast, a rapidly developing country like India (1/3rd the size of the US but 3x the population) used only 12.8 quad BTUs in 2001. In the same year, a first-world country like France (1/6th the size of India and 1/20th the population) used almost the same amount, ~11 quad BTUs.

It takes a *lot* of energy to sustain the first-world way of life.

Of course, improved research could reduce pollutants like heavy metals and sulfur from getting into the atmosphere, but as long as we have to burn stuff to produce energy, we'll continue to pump CO2 into the air. What I guess we need is better energy storage technology (batteries currently are quite inefficient) and better, safer fission reactors (3rd gen pebble-bed?) or practical nuclear fusion!

Re:The Green Brigade will be foaming at the mouth (1)

i_should_be_working (720372) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415298)

Have you not ever heard that it's better to err on the side of caution?

Re:The Green Brigade will be foaming at the mouth (1)

bheer (633842) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415325)

Other things being equal, sure. Given how dependent we are on fossil fuels to maintain our lifestyle, I'm not sure you could convince people to 'err on the side of caution'. Unless you could talk the first-world into reducing its energy expenditure? (see this post [slashdot.org] for some numbers).

Healing of the ozone layer? (0, Troll)

efortier (977389) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415026)

Still, I wonder what part that effort played into the alleged healing of the ozone layer. I'm still personally debating wether I believe all the enviro-nuts out there. At face value, doing whatever we can to preserve the ozone sounds like something we should all be focused on.

Has there been any *real* proof that the ozone layer is being harmed by humans?

E.

Re:Healing of the ozone layer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15415071)

Has there been any *real* proof that the ozone layer is being harmed by humans?

No. Those Nobel Prizes they gave out about 15 years ago were awarded to a couple of little-known, scientifically inept enviro-crackpots, just to make the hippies happy. The Nobel Prize Comittee is very concerned about the emotional state of hippies.

Re:Healing of the ozone layer? (2, Insightful)

ralph alpha (956305) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415079)

It is really important that you recognize that, as with any scientific venture, and with logical argument, there is never undeniable "proof" of anything -- just evidence that points one way or the other.
And there's a lot more evidence pointing toward the idea that we *are* harming it than evidence that we *aren't*.
People want undeniable "proof" because the idea that we are harming it is so controversial, and otherwise they aren't willing to accept it. If this is the case, then like any other controversial scientific topic, it will be many years before the majority of people will even consider its validity.
What are you looking for? An article that says "Proof Humans Are Responsible For Global Warming?" There are already lots of those out there, but even the scientists behind the research used for these sensational articles would disapprove of the titles. It could be said that people need such articles because nobody is willing to read scientific journals and conduct research themselves -- and this is perfectly reasonable.
If you want lots of legitimate scientific studies about this topic, Google Scholar [google.com] or your local university's libary can sure help out.

Re:Healing of the ozone layer? (2, Informative)

BoneFlower (107640) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415122)

There is proof that certain human activities are capable of damaging the ozone layers. Enough experiments were done that the possibility certainly exists.

The ozone layer was depleted more severely than known natural processes could account for. This is also pretty much fact.

Beyond that, it's basically an educated guess as to which of the following is more likely-

Are there ozone depleting natural reactions we are completely unaware are even possible?

Are the known natural processes happening with greater frequency than we currently are aware of?

Are human activities the primary cause?

Is the truth a mix of all three, and if so, what proportion is each effect?

And most importantly, regardless of the cause, is the question "What should we do about it?". Obviously we dont' want the ozone layer to go away completely. But whatever measures are taken to protect it must be moderated by an attempt to keep from throwing the rest of the ecosystem out of balance. It would do little good to restore the ozone layer only to throw the world into nuclear winter(extreme example, but it illustrates the point). It would be very bad to restore the ozone layer if an ozone depletion/restoration cycle was part of the Earth's natural housekeeping.

I haven't researched enough to really give many answers, just pointing out that there are important questions that almost never seem to get addressed in public releases. I'm sure a lot of this has been covered in the studies and experiments that led up to the ozone hole controversy, but very little of it seems to get into the public eye.

Thanks HP (3, Funny)

Uukrul (835197) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415028)

That's because HP printers have Ozone Emissions [hp.com] . Thanks HP for saving the World.

Re:Thanks HP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15415068)

Not HP. Thank Mad Cow disease. You see, when Mad Cow scared the heck out of the world, they slaughtered their whole livestock. No more cow flatulence. No more ozone leakage. Pretty swell, I must say.

Re:Thanks HP (1)

stunt_penguin (906223) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415080)

mmmhm, I guess you're another one of these easily confused (read:ignorant) A/Cs who confuses global warming with the hole in the Ozone Layer.

The hole in the Ozone Layer != Global warming

Re:Thanks HP (1)

Trouvist (958280) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415078)

Last time I checked, Ozone was the major component in smog. Wouldn't that mean that in high-density population areas, the printers are actually contributing to the smog more than if they didn't emit ozone?

I do feel better now (0, Troll)

eLijahTheReticent (902423) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415039)

I think it's time to put aside all the tinfoil hats.

Re:I do feel better now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15415184)

Hang on a second... millions of geeks wearing tinfoil hats... plus ozone healing ultraviolet rays... holy shit! Maybe tons of UV rays were reflected off our collective tinfoil hats and back into the atmosphere where a second pass created more ozone than expected?!

Wow! Geeks just saved the planet!

death (0, Troll)

Geeselegs (905363) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415040)

This protocol is going to kill us all, with an oZone layer global cooling will occur We Must stop this atrocity against the world as soon as possible

Doesn't ANYBODY remember the 80s? (-1, Flamebait)

Max Threshold (540114) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415102)

Back in, like, 1985, everyone was screaming, "OMGZ THE OZONE HOLE! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!"

And then in, like, 1988, it was... "Uh, the hole went away. Sorry. False alarm."

And then in, like, 1992, it was, "OMGZ THE OZONE HOLE! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!"

Don't get me wrong -- I'm a rabid environmentalist; I support spiking trees and sabotaging construction projects. But the ozone layer thing is absolute bullshit... a hoax designed to see who's still paying attention.

Re:Doesn't ANYBODY remember the 80s? (4, Informative)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415121)

The people in the southern reaches of the southern hemisphere do not think it is a hoax: the incidence of skin cancer mushroomed [blackwell-synergy.com] in southern Chile as the hole in the ozone increased. Not the end of the world, but a real and ongoing health hazard.

Re:Doesn't ANYBODY remember the 80s? (0)

Max Threshold (540114) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415163)

Nobody has ever satisfactorily explained how stratospheric ozone is any more effective at absorbing UV radiation than the ozone that exists in the troposphere. There is 1000x more ozone in the atmosphere of an average-sized city than supposedly exists in the stratosphere.

Nobody has ever satisfactorily explained why ozone-destroying chemicals would "migrate" to the poles and create holes there.

Nobody has ever satisfactorily explained how periodic holes in the ozone at the poles threaten anyone other than those who live at extreme latitudes.

Nobody has ever satisfactorily explained why the holes are periodic, if they're supposedly caused by human activity. This article the first attempt I've seen to correlate a reduction in the size of ozone holes with a reduction in pollutants, and it conveniently ignores the fact that the holes have inexplicably shrunk and grown several times since they were detected.

Re:Doesn't ANYBODY remember the 80s? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15415390)

Sorry man, but what you mean is: nobody has satisfactorily explained these things to you, personally. You got to read up on these things if you want to understand them. Each and every one of these effects has been discussed at length in scientific and popular literature.

Re:Doesn't ANYBODY remember the 80s? (2, Interesting)

toupsie (88295) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415317)

The people in the southern reaches of the southern hemisphere do not think it is a hoax: the incidence of skin cancer mushroomed in southern Chile as the hole in the ozone increased. Not the end of the world, but a real and ongoing health hazard.

Must be the better methods of detecting skin cancer and the wider access to medical services over time. If more people are being examined, more conditions will be found.

Re:Doesn't ANYBODY remember the 80s? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15415126)

Don't get me wrong -- I'm a rabid environmentalist; I support spiking trees and sabotaging construction projects

You say it like you are proud, butI suppose most sociopaths tend to think *they* are the righteous ones.

You are a worthless sack of pig shit, and should be spat upon by everyone.

Re:Doesn't ANYBODY remember the 80s? (1)

Max Threshold (540114) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415141)

I'm a sociopath because I would protect the beaty that belongs to everyone from those who would destroy it for profit? I think you're confused.

Re:Doesn't ANYBODY remember the 80s? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15415176)

Why don't you just protect your own beaty and leave everyone else's alone?

Re:Doesn't ANYBODY remember the 80s? (1)

trewornan (608722) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415247)

Although decisions about balancing conservation with economic benefits have already been made democratically you choose to elevate your own opinions above the collective opinion of others. As a result of your self granted position of superiority you then choose to break the law and endanger the lives of employees of the timber and construction industry who are (after all) only trying to provide for themselves and their dependents.

And you think the GP is confused - geez . . .

Re:Doesn't ANYBODY remember the 80s? (-1, Troll)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415168)

"But the ozone layer thing is absolute bullshit"

Agreed, and people should remember that CFC production and usage never went to zero during all these years. There's only a handful of western nations that actually banned a handful of ozone "depleting" chemicals.

Drive down to mexico and get your cars air conditioner charged with a real coolant, not the environmentally friendly bullshit they're forced to use in the states.

Re:Doesn't ANYBODY remember the 80s? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15415251)

The point is that most of the CFC was produced in those handful of western nations. These handful of western nations is responsible for the biggest junk of consumption and for an even bigger junk of production. Hence what they decide to do affects the world significantly. What Mexico does is important too - but much less so. Fact is that the CFC emissions dropped dramatically. There is no need whatsoever to bring it down to zero.

Re:Doesn't ANYBODY remember the 80s? (1)

Zaatxe (939368) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415217)

You don't live in the southern hemisphere, do you? I used to live in southern Brazil, now I'm living in Spain. In the first few days I was here I could already tell the sun burns much, but much less here than there (and I had thermometers both there and here, so I say it's not the temperature). Reports were saying that the ozone layer where I used to live were already 27% thinner than what it should be. I couldn't go to the beach without a 50 FPS sunscreen. You say "bullshit", but I say "skin cancer risk".

Re:Doesn't ANYBODY remember the 80s? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15415246)

I'm a rabid environmentalist

The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

Re:Doesn't ANYBODY remember the 80s? (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415338)

Well, I'm so glad you're a "rabid environmentalist". Too bad you're incredibly stupid as well. Do you realize that spiking trees only causes more of them to be cut down to replace the spiked ones (the spiked logs are rolled off and discarded -- wasting wood), the production of more steel saw blades to replace the ruined ones (causing more mining and energy usage) and the artifical increase of all wood products?

All this, just to satisfy some inner glee you have at causing a short and wasteful disturbance in the production line.

Last I checked... (0)

TooncesTheCat (900528) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415107)

Funny thing isnt it? I remember when I was growing up in the 90's ( Im 21 ) the main thing as far as saving the Earth was concerned was stopping the Ozone hole from getting bigger. The whole global warming was supposedly from the Ozone hole being as large as it was at the current point in time. If the hole has been recovering since then why are scientists blaming mankind for the current increase in temperatures.

Global warming is a natural cycle, seeing as how in the 90's global warming was being blamed on the Ozone hole being as large as it was.

My two cents.

You were wrong. (5, Informative)

mcc (14761) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415128)

If the hole has been recovering since then why are scientists blaming mankind for the current increase in temperatures.

Because the ozone hole and global warming are two totally separate phenomena. They are both caused by pollution, but different kinds of pollution-- in simple terms, the ozone hole is caused by CFCs, global warming is caused by greenhouse gases. In the 80s, we stopped using CFCs, and since CFCs take a few decades to fall out of the atmosphere, now that a few decades have passed the ozone hole is starting to get better. In the 80s we did not stop our emission of greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide), so global climate change / global warming is still getting worse.

Of course, carbon dioxide takes longer to fall out of the atmosphere than CFCs, so even if we entirely ceased carbon dioxide emissions tomorrow (which we probably couldn't even if we really wanted to without bringing civilization to its knees) we shouldn't expect to see things returning to normal for maybe a couple hundreds of years. But at least we could stop making things worse.

Repairing the ozone hole is not helping global warming for the same reason that if your computer's power supply is on fire, you cannot fix this by reinstalling Windows. If you thought that repairing the ozone hole would stop global warming, it is because you are confused.

Re:You were wrong. (1)

rhendershot (46429) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415400)

The Ozone Hole (tm) is what we were going to use to fix the CO2 problem, you insensitive clod!

Now you're really screwed....

----
pay no attention to this post - IANAC

Re:Last I checked... (0, Troll)

davids-world.com (551216) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415129)

Well, Ozone depletion seems to actually lower temperatures, thereby masking [fpif.org] global warming.

Both Ozone hole and global warming have similar causes though (emissions, in general). Don't forget that Ozone forming low on the ground (in smog) is another another problem.

The fact that phenomena are related and causality is not as easy as you think or thought it was isn't the scientist's fault. What matters is what we know now, based on current evidence. And that is that global warming is much greater than a normal, cyclical effect. It is clear that it is man-made, and there are absolutely plausible known mechanisms for this.

Sure, an administration can repress scientists and support the mineral oil business (owned by the President's family) and a globally harmful lifestyle. But that is not going to change the realities, and it's not going to save our habitat.

Re:Last I checked... (1)

StarkRG (888216) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415167)

Nobody of any real value has ever said that ozone has anything to do with global warming, they're completely different things.

Your tires being flat have nothing to do with your lack of washer fluid.

Ozone reflects UV rays (UVC I believe, or possibly UVA, I don't remember which), Ultra Violet is in no way responsible for the warming of anything. Pollutants and greenhouse gasses are what cause global warming (which, ironically could plunge us into another ice age), in greenhouse gasses do not do anything to ozone.

Chlorine is a catalyst in the breakdown of O3 (Ozone) into O2 + O (Oxygen molecule and single oxygen atom), being a catalyst means that it isn't affected in the chemical process (think about it as a traffic light, it lets the ozone break down, but the ozone has no effect on the chlorine).

In fact, I believe ozone, itself, is a greenhouse gas, so, were it the ozone hole the only thing to worry about, the planet would actually be getting colder. This is not to say that we should get rid of ozone because it's causing global warming, that's just being moronic. Ozone has a purpose, the purpose has nothing to do with heat.

Re:Last I checked... (1, Troll)

nathanh (1214) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415344)

The whole global warming was supposedly from the Ozone hole being as large as it was at the current point in time.

No, you are confused.

However what you've said is fascinating. You heard about the ozone hole and global warming at the same time so you've incorrectly held this belief that they are strongly related. The Bush government used a similar trick to sway the public into thinking 9/11 justified a war in Iraq; a poll found approximately 70% of US citizens believe that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attack [usatoday.com] . I wonder how many other misconceptions come into being because people heard two unrelated things at roughly the same time.

Re:Last I checked... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15415382)

Read the article - it states that the upper stratosphere ozone recovery is predicted by the CFC's regulation. So, the regulation has been beneficial to the environment as far as the ozone layer is concerned. As for global climate change due to human intervention, there really is no more dispute in the scientific community. A broad consensus has been reached that it exists, it is unnatural, and that the problems it creates are not easy to fix.

Duh..... (2, Insightful)

IHC Navistar (967161) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415110)

Did anyone ever wonder just HOW the ozone layer got there in the first place? Most likely, it was the product of atmospheric electrical activity. Converseley, it has probably gone under reductions in the past from volcanic emmission, LONG before you or I were on this planet. As it appears, the ozone layer has most likely undergone cycles of reduction and increase many many many times in the past.

Sometimes, eco-freaks are just plain wrong. I guess they must be smoking some bad granola.....

-----

Why do people get offended when I give them my opinion after they ask for it?

Photocopier Fumes (4, Funny)

celardore (844933) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415162)

Apparently the fumes given off by photocopiers are Ozone. I'm doing my bit for the enviroment by copying documents at work unnessecarily.

My boss says it's a waste of time and money though. He doesn't give a shit about the enviroment I guess.

Re:Photocopier Fumes (0)

Zaatxe (939368) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415229)

Have you though about how much paper you are wasting and how much ozone you are getting? I know, I know, what are a few billion trees when you have to save a few billion people? Unfortunatelly, according to the HP website, their try to keep the ozone emission as low as possible, and some printers even have ozone filters! Bastards! I bet they even use CFC to make their printers! I bet their have a share in sunscreen factories! I bet the toners they make is made of baby kittens!

Cool! (1)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415254)

Cool, now we can start polluting again! :(

Now seriously, don't let anyone ignore one of the sentences in the article:

Today, almost 20 years later, reports continue of large ozone holes opening over Antarctica, allowing dangerous UV rays through to Earth's surface. Indeed, the 2005 ozone hole was one of the biggest ever, spanning 24 million sq km in area, nearly the size of North America.

Re:Cool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15415389)

"Indeed, the 2005 ozone hole was one of the biggest ever", according to whom? How long have we been able to measure a hole in the ozone....50...75 years? I would hardly consider this a long enough period of a time sample to make ANY conclusions!

Can you dumb it down a little more please? (2, Insightful)

SlashSquatch (928150) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415301)

Think of the ozone layer as Earth's sunglasses, protecting life on the surface from the harmful glare of the sun's strongest ultraviolet rays, which can cause skin cancer and other maladies.

Thanks NASA, I'm confused now. Lets not slap the public with too much cold hard science at once. A diagram of the earth wearing sunglasses might help me understand how that can help it prevent skin cancer and other maladies. My two year can think of a better opener -- "I've got new shoes" seems to be slightly more informative.

"Do the chickens have large talons?"
"Boy I didn't understand a word you just said."

Al Gore is going to be pissed! (1, Funny)

toupsie (88295) | more than 7 years ago | (#15415310)

Can this guy ever get a break? He just released a movie called An Inconvenient Truth [climatecrisis.net] telling us that the sky was falling. Now we learn its staying right where it has always been all along even with Chimpy McHaliburton in charge. My God, the next thing you will read is that the ice is getting thicker in Antarctica and Greenland [bbc.co.uk] .

ozone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15415440)

It was just a natural cycle all along.
Man is not nearly as important to this universe as he would like to believe
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...