backtop


Print 98 comment(s) - last by Pythias.. on Oct 9 at 4:58 PM


Ozone loss over the South Pole, as measured in Dobson Units.  (Source: KNMI/ESA)

The charted amount of ozone loss, charted per year over the last decade.  (Source: KNMI/ESA)
Good news for those living in the southern hemisphere, the ozone hole may be shrinking

After reaching a record high in 2006, scientists at the European Space Agency (ESA) reports that the ozone hole decreased by nearly a third in 2007.  The agency also warned that the decrease is not a sign of permanent recovery, based on their research.

Ozone (O3) is a compound found in Earth's upper atmosphere.  It is found in high concentrations in the titular ozone layer which is part of the stratosphere.  The ozone layer provides the essential function of protecting the Earth from harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation. 

The global ozone layer has been thinning at a rate of 0.3% per year.  UV radiation causes genetic mutation in exposed tissues, which has led to an increased risk of cataracts and skin cancer as well as damage to marine life.

The largest region of ozone loss, recognized in 1985, has occurred over the South Pole.  The hole over the south pole is defined by two means -- the area of the hole and the depth of the hole.  In 2006, the hole reached a record 40 million square kilometers.  This year the hole had dropped to 24.7 million square kilometers.  It is significant to note that the ozone hole fluctuates greatly each year.

This year's ozone loss peaked at 27.7 million tonnes as opposed to 2006's loss of over 40 million tonnes.

Ozone concentration is measured in Dobson Units.  The ESA provides the following definition of Dobson Units:
A Dobson Unit is a unit of measurement that describes the thickness of the ozone layer in a column directly above the location being measured. For instance, if an ozone column of 300 Dobson Units is compressed to 0º C and 1 atmosphere (the pressure at the Earth’s surface) and spread out evenly over the area, it would form a slab of ozone approximately 3mm thick.
A common misconception is that areas that are part of an ozone hole contain no ozone.  The atmosphere in ozone holes still contains ozone, though the concentration is greatly reduced.  This reduction in ozone concentration leads to a drastic reduction in its ability to protect against UV radiation.  Any area where the ozone concentration is less that 220 Dobson Units is considered part of the hole.  This standard is used to define the yearly size of the hole over Antarctica.  The thinnest area of this year's ozone hole had a concentration of 120 Dobson Units.

Ronald van der A, a senior project scientist at Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute (KNMI) who helped conduct the study explained why the results were not the sign of a permanent recovery:
Although the hole is somewhat smaller than usual, we cannot conclude from this that the ozone layer is recovering already.  This year's ozone hole was less centred on the South Pole as in other years, which allowed it to mix with warmer air, reducing the growth of the hole because ozone is depleted at temperatures less than -78 degrees Celsius.
The ozone hole is a seasonal phenomena.  It begins in the winter months when winds called the Polar Vortext cut Antarctica's air mass off from mid-latitude warming air currents.  The isolation of the air, combined with the darkness of winter leads to the temperature dropping dramatically.  Dropping temperatures lead to the formation of stratospheric clouds containing chlorine and other halogens.

In the spring temperatures rise and these halogens begin to react with the ozone in destructive radical reactions.  The halogens behave as radicals, species with a single valence electron.  Radicals are typically highly reactive.  The reaction breaks down ozone into O2.  It does not consume the chlorine or other halogen, so the chlorine radical is free to initiate another reaction. 

Because of this, a single chlorine atom in the atmosphere can destroy thousands of ozone molecules.  A chlorine atom will remain in the stratosphere reacting for approximately two years; the time it takes for it to reenter the troposphere.  Once it reenters the troposphere, it is sometimes reabsorbed by living organism who convert it to compounds such as hydrochloric acid -- frequently it is not and simply reenters the stratosphere via air currents.

The ozone loss continues annually until November or December, which are the summer months of the Southern Hemisphere.  At this time the Polar Vortex is finally overcome by sunlight warming and ozone from the mid-latitude stratosphere flows in, replenishing the ozone layer and patching the ozone hole.

Ozone destroying compounds such as chlorine and bromine originate from man-made products like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).  CFC production was banned by the Montreal Protocol in September of 1987, but the halogen compounds they generate linger in the atmosphere for decades.

The ESA tracks global ozone levels on a daily basis via its Envisat satellite.  The satellite has
three atmospheric instruments aboard -- SCIAMACHY, the global ozone monitoring by occultation of stars (GOMOS) sensor and the Michelson interferometer for passive atmospheric sounding (MIPAS).  These instruments allow it to precisely tack ozone concentrations. 

The ESA's data from Envisat is used as the basis of a near-real time ozone monitoring and forecasting service which is part of the PROMOTE (PROtocol MOniToring for the GMES (Global Monitoring for Environment and Security) Service Element) consortium, made up of more than 30 partners from 11 countries, including KNMI.

These orginizations seek to both research and better understand ozone depletion and to provide people worldwide with information on the current state of the ozone.

W
hile the study by KNMI and the ESA indicates that the ozone hole recovery of this year was likely simply a temporary trend, international cooperation and increased public awareness will hopefully eventually lead to recovery such as 2007's being a permanent trend.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

This goes to show ya...
By retrospooty on 10/5/2007 2:30:43 PM , Rating: 2
Nature is more than capable of healing itself. Its been here for 5 billion years and has gone through alot more horrific catacylysms than us puny humans can throw at it. Massive comets, supervolcanoes, tectonic shifts, ice ages, solar radiation, massive methane pockets, etc etc etc.

It will live on, even when/if we are gone.




RE: This goes to show ya...
By mdogs444 on 10/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: This goes to show ya...
By James Holden on 10/5/2007 2:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
Got a link to that?


RE: This goes to show ya...
By mdogs444 on 10/5/2007 2:49:53 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, here ya go: http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=36617...

Here is my favorite part of the article:
quote:
Scientifically, "the majority of the arguments advanced are false, or falsely exaggerated on the basis of the government's own evidence," the barrister said.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By LogicallyGenius on 10/5/2007 4:20:17 PM , Rating: 2
Its not the nature doing the job

its the increased number of cars that are emitting OZONE.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By Souka on 10/5/2007 6:19:42 PM , Rating: 2
Not cars... its those Sharper Image ozone air purifiers that were so popular....all that ozone...

:P


RE: This goes to show ya...
By James Holden on 10/5/2007 6:28:10 PM , Rating: 2
The Sharper Image attempted to sue Consumer Reports for claiming the device doesn't work. I'm pretty sure SI lost.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By PlasmaBomb on 10/6/2007 6:40:11 AM , Rating: 2
Low level ozone is bad and has nothing to do with the changes in the ozone layer.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By vortmax on 10/8/2007 11:25:38 AM , Rating: 2
I've got a solution for filling the hole:

Everyone on the planet should turn on their fans and point them skyward, blowing all that low-level ozone back where it belongs...


RE: This goes to show ya...
By sinful on 10/5/2007 8:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
The article says it is being challenged, and it is ALLEGED to be false.

So, you might as well say
Scientifically, "the majority of the arguments advanced are false, or falsely exaggerated on the basis of the government's own evidence BECAUSE ALIENS ARE RESPONSIBLE INSTEAD".

Allegations != proven.

In fact, it appears the Europeans seem to believe in it quite substantially - the reason this is being challenged is because it's being proposed TO BE PART OF SCHOOL CURRICULUM.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By Basilisk on 10/5/2007 9:06:54 PM , Rating: 2
... And that CHALLENGE is being mounted by that most technically well-versed icon of society, a secondary school (H.S.) governor (principal).

That clinches it: with the British government mandating students view the film, and one HS principal opposing it, the film must be trash!


RE: This goes to show ya...
By Rovemelt on 10/6/2007 9:46:06 AM , Rating: 2
The quote mdogs444 takes from the article is from the lawyer who is challenging the showing the of the movie to students in the UK. Of course the lawyer is going to say something like that to try and win the case. Also, the case hasn't been ruled on according to the article.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/5/2007 2:44:38 PM , Rating: 5
Thats humorous and all, but it was activists like Al Gore that got CFCs banned in the first place.

If CFCs had not been banned the ozone would not even have a possible chance in the day to recover.

Don't confuse ozone depletion with GW theory, either. Ozone depletion's basic operation is throroughly understood and researched. And ozone depletion is proven to be thoroughly anthropogenic and to have real life serious rammifications.

Its easy to blanketly dismiss environmental movements due to ignorance be it willful or unintentional.

Criticism and dissent is healthy, but focus it into something productive, that is my suggestion to you.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By mdogs444 on 10/5/2007 2:53:31 PM , Rating: 1
Well im glad you can see some humor in it, because that movie is political mush - no matter what wing you are.

Im not dismissing any environmental concerns out there, especially the ozone. But what I am saying is that much of the environmental concerns are not proven in any means what so ever, and so many people out there are "hugging trees" becuase they are believing false political propaganda with no evidence that humans are the cause.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By Oregonian2 on 10/5/2007 3:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, to me when good material is hyped to sell , I find it counter productive. I really hate it when someone hypes a position that I have for that reason. The backlash then attacks the hype and damages the "good proper and correct material". Makes the valid position a joke due to the hype added on to "help".


RE: This goes to show ya...
By omnicronx on 10/6/2007 6:08:18 PM , Rating: 4
Just because something is not 100% scientifically proven, does not make it untrue. Most big discoveries were not proven 100% by the people that came up with them, just look at Einstein. I am not saying the movie is correct, but you can not discredit everything that is being said just because you feel there is not sufficient proof. Otherwise we would still be in a world where the belief is still that the world is flat.

Global warming in some way or another does exist, whether the cause is man made, or natural is still debatable, but do you really need to be proven wrong before you will do anything about it? Because in my mind, that will probably be decades too late.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By Oregonian2 on 10/8/2007 2:09:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just because something is not 100% scientifically proven, does not make it untrue. Most big discoveries were not proven 100% by the people that came up with them,


But most "discoveries" are probably bogus. Not all, but probably most. So not being proven does not make it untrue. Only makes it probably untrue.

Wonder how the cold fusion power plants are coming along...


RE: This goes to show ya...
By Kanti on 10/8/2007 2:52:29 PM , Rating: 1
Just ignore this right wing troll. Nothing any of you say is going to make a dent in his ideological armor, so don't bother plying him with facts. Anyone who attacks Al Gore with these Ad Hominem attacks, or ridiculously spurious articles like he linked, as if Al Gore were the messiah of the environmental movement, doesn't care about whether GW is accurate or not, or what happens to the planet. This is all just a political football to them.

Notice how they never make informed rational arguments against the facts themselves, or the scientific methods employed, instead they rant about some movie. Al Gore is not a scientist, he is a cheerleader. He did not research, nor invent, the facts presented in his movie. The data the movie was based on was well peer reviewed, and has a consensus agreement, but the focus was on more of the worst case scenarios. Al Gore's movie was not a scientific thesis, it was just to raise awareness, and draw attention, and good on him for doing so, because that attention is doing a lot of good.

Anyone ignorant enough to still think this is a political matter, or the product of political propaganda, simply because it casts a deservedly negative light on harmful wealthy interests, should be beneath our notice.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By James Holden on 10/5/2007 2:58:34 PM , Rating: 2
Please don't lump great minds like Frank Rowland and Mario Henriquez in the same boat as Al Gore.

Those guys actually won Nobel prizes for their work, and continued to do incredible work since.

Al Gore did very little about the environment until the mid-90s, and the majority of his eco-friendly programs to date are largely politically motivated.

You really can't, and shouldn't, begin to compare these two types of people.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By athlonotaku on 10/5/2007 4:20:04 PM , Rating: 2
This is a Tech site, or at least the title of the web page says so.

Why is this posted on here?


RE: This goes to show ya...
By 3kliksphilip on 10/5/2007 4:54:57 PM , Rating: 2
That's what I've been thinking every time Masher releases another blog which I refuse to click on.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By SavagePotato on 10/5/07, Rating: 0
RE: This goes to show ya...
By Etsp on 10/5/2007 5:53:18 PM , Rating: 2
Thats kinda funny, he said he doesn't read Masher's blog posts, he didn't say anything about Jason's...


RE: This goes to show ya...
By James Holden on 10/5/2007 5:14:07 PM , Rating: 2
It says technology and science for me.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By athlonotaku on 10/8/2007 10:25:02 AM , Rating: 2
Not sure where your pulling technology from, since it talks about the ozone layer. Unless you mean the technology used to measure the ozone layer... which they don't really mention.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By mikeyD95125 on 10/5/2007 6:27:04 PM , Rating: 2
It's science. And what is the problem? If you don't like it then don't read it. But the article is here to educate so either appreciate it or read something else.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By athlonotaku on 10/8/2007 10:31:45 AM , Rating: 2
I understand that science and technology can be linked. But the two topics in this particular case are a bit far off because the editor didn't even include information dealing with the technology used to measure this hole.

Educate? This article didn't educate me on anything I don't already know. I come to this site to read about technology[dailyTECH], not highschool science material.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By kusala on 10/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: This goes to show ya...
By Basilisk on 10/5/2007 9:23:01 PM , Rating: 4
Just because your classes may not have motivated you to appreciate the issues doesn't preclude others from having benefited.

CFC use restrictions began in the 1970's and became serious in the 1990's as scavenging systems became mandated for refrigerant work (so that systems being repaired would not leak all their CFC into the atmosphere). CFC manufacture was radically restricted (making that scavenged CFC valuable as the price rose). The result has been a considerable reduction in CFC release over the past decade.

I agree with you that there's a problem for "the ignorant types"....


RE: This goes to show ya...
By kusala on 10/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: This goes to show ya...
By Rovemelt on 10/6/2007 10:08:06 AM , Rating: 3
The chemistry behind ozone depletion has been studied extensively and is generally well understood. Scientists don't have the luxury of looking through thousands of years of satellite ozone data because it doesn't exist. But the researchers do have data on the chemicals that react with or degrade ozone and have an understanding about how those compounds persist and diffuse through the atmosphere.

Take off the foil hat...not every environmental cause is based on hippies scheming to steal money from you.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By kusala on 10/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: This goes to show ya...
By omnicronx on 10/7/2007 1:34:55 AM , Rating: 2
If you had never seen a gun before would i have to shoot you in the face to prove that it would hurt you?

CFC's have been reduced, ozone depletion has appeared to at least be slowing down. Are you really saying that just because it is not 100% proven that we should just toss out this evidence?


RE: This goes to show ya...
By kusala on 10/7/2007 1:14:07 PM , Rating: 2
Toss it out no. Say its 100% fact no. But it should be a theory not a fact.

Thats all. The gun theory was a bit ridiculous tho.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By sinful on 10/7/2007 2:40:18 PM , Rating: 4
You could be superman, and shooting you in the face might not hurt you.
=P


RE: This goes to show ya...
By PlasmaBomb on 10/6/2007 6:39:18 AM , Rating: 5
R-22 isn't classed as a CFC, more correctly it is a hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFC) and its potential to deplete ozone is about 20 times less that R-11.

The legislation in place will prohibit retail manufactures from selling products containing R-22 from the 1st January 2010.

The problem with ozone generation is that its benefit is dependant on the altitude at which it is created. Thus low and mid level ozone are harmful, while high level ozone is beneficial in reducing UV radiation levels reaching the ground.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By johnsonx on 10/6/2007 12:11:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ozone depletion's basic operation is throroughly understood and researched.


Apparently not as well understood as you think:

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382...


RE: This goes to show ya...
By Ryanman on 10/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: This goes to show ya...
By sinful on 10/7/2007 2:54:53 PM , Rating: 2
Answer this question:
Do you think releasing 7.3 BILLION tons of C02 into the air PER YEAR is going to have an effect on the environment. Yes or No?

(Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0522/csmimg/p11c_pop...

Now, call me an arrogant environmentalist, but I would think releasing 7.3 Billion tons/year of ANYTHING into the air is going to have a net overall impact eventually.

You're right, humanity will probably kill itself eventually; however, I for one would rather see it happen "later" than "sooner".


RE: This goes to show ya...
By gradoman on 10/5/2007 8:16:19 PM , Rating: 2
here's to hoping the bozone layer will shrink as well.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By Parhel on 10/5/2007 8:19:27 PM , Rating: 2
It's funny you should say that. In "An Inconvenient Truth," he mentions the hole in the ozone layer several times as an example of an environmental problem that was reversed because people were made aware of it and changed their behavior.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By mxnerd on 10/5/2007 2:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
This is irresponsibile attitude.

If a person gets sick, does he have to see a doctor? Will the illness cure itself?

Yes, earth will live on for another billion years, but how about the species on earth? Especially human?


RE: This goes to show ya...
By retrospooty on 10/5/2007 2:47:39 PM , Rating: 2
You are correct. The underlying current of my comment was that Earth will live on. We are only hurting Earths habitablity for ourselves. If we blow it, and go extinct, earth will renew itself.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By tigen on 10/5/2007 8:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares if Earth itself lives on? The only interesting and unique thing about Earth in the universe the life on it.

I think it's possible for us to utterly destroy the planet if we really tried.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By retrospooty on 10/5/2007 10:45:37 PM , Rating: 3
Nope... Not even if we made 1000x the nuclear bombs we have today and blew them all up at once. Most life would die off in the several years long nuclear winter that followed the blasts, but Earth would start again, and bacteria would evolve again.

Anyhow, the main point here is to take care of our planet so it remains habitable for us.


By CascadingDarkness on 10/8/2007 3:01:55 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know, what about some under ground trying to throw off the magnetism?

Even better lets just throw off the moons orbit, nothing could be better than 1/50th of your mass slamming into you.

I just came up with those in few seconds. Where are the mad scientists when you need them?


RE: This goes to show ya...
By Ard on 10/5/2007 3:47:02 PM , Rating: 2
All of which are natural phenomena...somehow I don't think you can compare that to what we're throwing into the atmosphere...


RE: This goes to show ya...
By BCanR2D2 on 10/6/2007 4:28:00 AM , Rating: 2
All of which is stuff that has to come from components found on Earth?????

We may make certain things that whilst manmade, are just reconstituted combinations of naturally occurring substances, therefore the Earth will deal with it all in good time.

As others have said, all we are doing is shortening the time frame for human habitation in it's current form, as if we wipe ourselves out, the Earth will recover in time and all will start anew.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By Bonesdad on 10/5/2007 5:24:08 PM , Rating: 2
Did you even READ the article? Nature isn't doing this, at least by itself...intelligent folks like Al Gore woke us all up to the dangers of CFCs. Now that CFCs are banned, and other chemicals are under scrutiny, the ozone hole is not as bad, at least not so far. This and global warming is a FACT...at least a portion of our impact on global warming is a fact too. Read more than the ultra conservative (which I have read!)takes on this information and THINK FOR YOURSELF.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By James Holden on 10/5/2007 5:31:23 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry for the double post, but I just posted this above for someone else who tried to compare the CFC ban to what people are trying to do with the "carbon ban"

quote:
Please don't lump great minds like Frank Rowland and Mario Henriquez in the same boat as Al Gore.

Those guys actually won Nobel prizes for their work, and continued to do incredible work since.

Al Gore did very little about the environment until the mid-90s, and the majority of his eco-friendly programs to date are largely politically motivated.

You really can't, and shouldn't, begin to compare these two types of people.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By PlasmaBomb on 10/6/2007 6:45:38 AM , Rating: 2
I think a carbon ban could be useful; we will just start with the people who want it. That should considerably reduce emissions :P


RE: This goes to show ya...
By mdogs444 on 10/5/2007 5:37:23 PM , Rating: 1
I cannot believe someone just used the words "Al Gore" and "intelligent" in the same sentence with be humorous.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By jdun on 10/7/2007 1:28:13 AM , Rating: 2
Al Gore is intelligent alright. He make tons of money from stupid fools that believe him. Laughing all the way to the bank.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By retrospooty on 10/5/2007 10:51:07 PM , Rating: 2
umm. I think you should take your own advice and think for yourself as well.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By Shintai on 10/5/2007 6:34:33 PM , Rating: 2
Or rather the global initiative to ban CFC/Freon gasses and so on in fridges etc.

Ye sure nature can heal itself..when we stop damaging it.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By mdogs444 on 10/5/2007 6:56:42 PM , Rating: 2
Well maybe you should go stand alone and protest by not having A/C in your car or own a fridge.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By borowki on 10/5/2007 7:57:46 PM , Rating: 2
It could be nature recovering. Or it could be someone finally managing to put a stop to Dr. Evil's plan.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By Necaradan666 on 10/6/2007 12:21:57 AM , Rating: 1
Never in the history of Earth has there been anything as destructive as Humans


RE: This goes to show ya...
By Basilisk on 10/6/2007 12:18:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by Necaradan666
Never in the history of Earth has there been anything as destructive as Humans

Actually, there have been MANY things more destructive than humans. Go back to your books for awhile.

It's an exhausting read at times -- trying to digest & inter-relate the chemical and biological processes being detailed -- but the book "Oxygen" [Nick Lane, auth.] is an amazing account of Earth history: its revelation of the extent to which scientists can make informative analyses of climate conditions millions of years ago is repeatedly staggering -- unless you're wearing tin foil or shrieking biblical literalism, I suppose. Anyway, the massive swings of Earth environments make the current swing seem puny.

Of course, the result of those swings was always lethal -- or we probably wouldn't be here! Credit where it's due: humans are the most destructive mammals on the Earth... so far.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By jdun on 10/7/2007 1:30:40 AM , Rating: 2
Do yourself and the rest of humanity a favor. Go back to school and learning something useful, like earth history.


RE: This goes to show ya...
By Samus on 10/6/2007 12:30:10 AM , Rating: 2
Actually it has more to do with us not using CFC-based products and R12-based refridgerants than 'nature healing itself'

Sure, the planet hooks us up with some protection by compensating for us messing its systems up, but it's been overwhelmed recently.


Kinda expected
By Murst on 10/5/2007 3:08:40 PM , Rating: 3
Regeneration of the ozone is kinda expected. Laws were implemented to stop the usage of the compound that has been proven to cause harm to the ozone.

Now, it certainly isn't meant to cause a 30% reduction in a year, but since the fluctuations are so great when looked over a fairly small timeframe, hopefully over the long term we'll see the ozone completely restored.




RE: Kinda expected
By blaster5k on 10/5/2007 3:44:03 PM , Rating: 2
Amen.


RE: Kinda expected
By johnsonx on 10/6/2007 11:57:36 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Laws were implemented to stop the usage of the compound that has been proven to cause harm to the ozone .


Wrong. New research out in the last few weeks says that the chemical reaction scientists thought was occurring with those evil compounds in fact was never happening at all, or at least happening far less than thought. So we're back to not knowing what causes changes in the ozone layer, and freon was banned for nothing.

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382...


RE: Kinda expected
By johnsonx on 10/6/2007 12:13:48 PM , Rating: 2
And yes, I saw this last line of the article:

quote:
“Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions.”


Now that's hilarious. 'yeah, we're sure we're right even though we admit we're full of crap'


RE: Kinda expected
By sinful on 10/6/2007 1:51:23 PM , Rating: 2
Sometimes its easier to figure out the inputs and outputs than it is to figure out what happens in between.

For instance, plants take sunlight, water, and C02 and turn it into useful stuff and O2. Easy right?
Now, can you list off the 20 or so steps that it takes to do that conversion?
Without looking it up, I doubt it - because it's a pretty complicated process.

That said, it's pretty easy to figure out what's going in and whats coming out.

Same deal with the ozone. It might be obvious that a factor affects the end result, but not necessarily what "step" in the process that the factor interferes with.


RE: Kinda expected
By awer26 on 10/6/2007 2:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see this as any kind of affirmative evidence of anything. I mean in '06 it was higher at this time of the year, in '04 it was much lower, a few years earlier it was much higher, etc... its current position is just a trend and anyone that says that this is because of changes in legislation or in the cars we drive is only looking at the short term (i.e. this year is better than last).


RE: Kinda expected
By sinful on 10/7/2007 1:44:16 AM , Rating: 2
The ozone level is going to flucuate due to natural phenomenon, so finding affirmative evidence is going to be hard.

To put it another way, if you have a fire and I dump water on it, scientifically measuring the difference in the intensity of the fire might be somewhat complicated. However, given that we know water generally counteracts fire, it is a fairly reasonable assumption that dumping water on a fire is going to have SOME positive effect towards quenching the fire. Measuring the difference, however, might be very complicated, as the fire could still grow despite water being dumped on it - but at a slower pace than what it would have without.

It's the same problem in regards to global climate change (incorrectly referred to as "global warming").
Measuring the difference in such a complicated system is ridiculously difficult given how dynamic the situation is.


RE: Kinda expected
By Murst on 10/6/2007 6:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, but you completely lost me.

First you say that I'm wrong about chemicals harming the ozone, and then you provide a quote that contradicts your argument.


RE: Kinda expected
By johnsonx on 10/7/2007 11:59:52 AM , Rating: 2
That was to pre-empt anyone who would quote the last line back at me to refute the whole article. I'm saying I reject the logic of that quote.

Also, yes, I do understand that this new research isn't definitive yet, and leaves more unanswerered questions.

But it's clear that the past claims of absolute certainty about causes of ozone depletion were wrong, in much the same way that current claims about CO2 and Global Warming are already being shown to be wrong.


RE: Kinda expected
By tjr508 on 10/6/2007 12:14:12 PM , Rating: 2
What about CFCs?


Ozone good or bad?
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 10/5/2007 3:01:07 PM , Rating: 2
But what about all the ozone produced by cars? Isn't that helping?




RE: Ozone good or bad?
By mdogs444 on 10/5/2007 3:05:28 PM , Rating: 1
Cars dont produce ozone, they product carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

I believe the biggest factor in ozone depletion was thought to be aerosol.


RE: Ozone good or bad?
By BladeVenom on 10/5/2007 3:15:52 PM , Rating: 2
Cars produce ozone. Ground level ozone is called smog.


RE: Ozone good or bad?
By blaster5k on 10/5/2007 3:40:44 PM , Rating: 3
Cars produce more than just carbon dioxide.

http://www.epa.gov/ARD-R5/mobile/auto_emis.htm

Ground level ozone is different from ozone layer depletion. We don't want ground level ozone since it causes breathing difficulty. We want ozone in the ozone layer though so we don't all get skin cancer.


RE: Ozone good or bad?
By Haltech on 10/5/2007 6:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
Ozone is good and bad if that helps :) Too much is bad and too little is bad yet convienetly the middle is good.


Confused
By halfwayglad on 10/5/2007 2:18:54 PM , Rating: 2
If you compare the image from 2006 to 2007 it looks exactly the same except it rotated 180 degrees. Did I miss something?




RE: Confused
By James Holden on 10/5/2007 2:20:36 PM , Rating: 2
The concentrations are different. Somehow I don't think the ESA messed that up ;)

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM6MD7H07F_index_0.html


RE: Confused
By halfwayglad on 10/5/2007 2:22:03 PM , Rating: 2
EDIT: I see there is small difference, but it doesn't look like 30% to me. Regardless, I hope this helps promote a more responsible use of our resources.


no subject
By Moishe on 10/5/2007 2:34:28 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The agency also warned that the decrease is not a sign of permanent recovery, based on their research.

It seems like they're being pessimistic. I wonder if this sort of statement was made when the hole was increasing it's size...

Something like: "The agency also warned that the growth of the hole in the ozone layer is not a sign of permanent harm, based on their research."

All I remember from the media was a big "OMG we're all gonna die!!!" (etc) But then human nature is to focus and amplify bad news rather than good news.

Good article overall though. Sounds like the money we spend and the changes we make can eventually have a positive effect. I for one am glad to hear about anything positive these days.




RE: no subject
By PlasmaBomb on 10/6/2007 6:16:10 AM , Rating: 2
The media are often guilty of putting a spin on articles to help them sell.

The pessimism is due to the weather patterns being different for part of the past year, leading to less CFCs being present and therefore less ozone damage. If the weather reverts to previous patterns much of the "repair" could be damaged again.


An idea from long ago...
By clovell on 10/5/2007 3:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
I think I was in the theird or fourth grade when all the bad new about the ozone hole hit its peak. It gave me an idea back then that I never really pushed forward.

I thought that if the ozone hole was getting bigger, we should find a way to fill it up. The idea has always stuck in the back of my head, but eventually I did a little research and found that ozone is a byproduct of some pretty common chemical reactions that occur in industrial settings. Why not build a big rocket, fill it with compressed ozone, shoot it into space, and vent the stuff over the hole?

I know it's gotta be too simple to actually do, but I was like 7 years old... Cool to think about, though.




RE: An idea from long ago...
By James Holden on 10/5/2007 4:00:57 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is we're in the "millions of tons" range, and ozone is toxic to living creatures.

We'd probably need to just start shooting ozone into the amosphere via some kind of land-based plant, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to live near it.


RE: An idea from long ago...
By Dharl on 10/5/2007 5:34:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We'd probably need to just start shooting ozone into the amosphere via some kind of land-based plant, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to live near it.


Not to mention work there...


By Ringold on 10/5/2007 3:06:09 PM , Rating: 4
I'd put it over Washington, D.C.

Nuke 'em all. :P


By johnsonx on 10/6/2007 12:06:19 PM , Rating: 2
Al Gore's house is too big to cover.


How the heck
By creathir on 10/5/2007 4:55:04 PM , Rating: 3
How on earth could these bozos feel this is only "temporary"?
In the few years we have been monitoring the Ozone, let alone even knew it existed, how could they possibly feel they have enough data to make such assertive predictions?

Does the scientific method get tossed out when people discuss Global Warming or anything pertaining to it?

There is such a frenzy to assume the sky is falling (quite literally I might add... or at least disappear) that everyone throws reason out.

Global warming, for the most part, has been proven over and over to be based on junk science, not fact. Even when faced with a 30% reduction in the hole that will doom our planet for eternity, the scientists that find it have the audacity to say "it is only temporary."

What BS.

- Creathir




RE: How the heck
By johnsonx on 10/6/2007 12:04:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Does the scientific method get tossed out when people discuss Global Warming or anything pertaining to it?


Yes. As long as you support the sacred positions of the Church of Global Warming (and it's minor deities Ozone Depletion and Habit Reduction, among others), scientific method is not only optional, but is to be avoided. Correct application of the scientific method to climate research will quickly get one branded a heretic. Loss of funding is sure to follow...


Re: Kinda Expected
By mmatis on 10/5/2007 8:07:07 PM , Rating: 5
Unfortunately, everyone seems to ignore the fact that ChloroFluoroCarbons are all heavier than air. There is no reasonable way to get significant quantities of it up to that altitude, without being unable to do a freon leak check down here on the ground. The minute traces the clowns detect up there aren't doing crap. On the other hand, there's a chemical called Methyl Chloride. One Carbon, one chlorine, and a few hydrogen atoms. Guess what? That's about the same density as air, which is largely GN2. And guess what else? Methyl Chloride is a significant constituent of sea water. And guess what more? Every time a friggin' volcano blows, huge amounts of Methyl Chloride are spewed right up there. Ya wanna see somethin' speshul? Take a look at an overlay of the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (which was measuring ozone in the upper atmosphere) and the western weather satellite - I think it was GOES West - back when Mount Pinatubo was doing its thing. You can watch the cloud from Mount Pinatubo go around the globe, and watch the ozone layer instantaneously disappear. But it's not politically correct to point that out. So the filthy swill keep spewing their lies. On and on and on...




Loss is still a loss
By flipsu5 on 10/5/2007 9:08:55 PM , Rating: 2
Until we see something like ozone recovery in the hole, loss is continuing, a slowdown just means we are a little bit lucky.




RE: Loss is still a loss
By PlasmaBomb on 10/6/2007 6:20:17 AM , Rating: 2
Did you actually read the article and look at the comparisons?


Ozone Concentrations
By sidhu663 on 10/5/2007 10:31:19 PM , Rating: 3
Hey guys quick question.
Im looking at the ozone hole pictures and i noticed that while the concentration of the hole itself is low, the concentration around it is much higher than that of the rest of the world. are we actually losing ozone or is it being distributed unevenly while the total amount of ozone on earth stays constant.




Something's not right here.
By MrTeal on 10/5/2007 5:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ozone (O3) is a compound found in Earth's upper atmosphere. It is found in high concentrations in the titular ozone layer which is part of the stratosphere. The ozone layer, first recognized in 1985, provides the essential function of protecting the Earth from harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation.


The ozone hole was recognized in 1985. The ozone layer has been known abot for quite a bit longer.




SAfe down here where NO-ONE reads
By yxalitis on 10/7/2007 10:07:54 PM , Rating: 2
OK, this is yet another example of scientific stupidity
Ozone is created by the interaction of upper-atmosphere particles and U.V. radiation
at the poles, the U.V. radiation is more oblique, so less ozone is created.

The whole concept of a hole came about as a result of the fist attempts to measure ozone over the south pole...the hole most likely has always been there!

The whole "ozone hole" thing is a farce of epic proportions.




This is great news.
By Pythias on 10/9/2007 4:58:38 PM , Rating: 2
Now if we can just get Michael Moore to shut the OTHER two-thirds of his hole.




"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki