backtop

Science Ozone Hole in 2008 Outgrows 2007 Hole
Jason Mick (Blog) - October 9, 2008 5:19 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 152 comment(s) - last by ThePooBurner.. on Oct 21 at 3:34 PM

The Ozone how has been growing since the 1990s, The hole is pictured in dark blue, with red indicating areas of recovery (high ozone).  (Source: KNMI/ESA)

This graph shows the area of the hole over the course of each year for the last decade.  (Source: KNMI/ESA)

This year there was more active chlorine particles from CFC pollution, thanks in part to weather patterns. These particles helped destroy extra ozone, increasing the size of the hole.  (Source: KNMI/ESA)
We're back in the hole

Last year brought some seemingly good news -- the ozone hole shrunk for the first time in years.  While it’s illogical to try to glean too many conclusions from an event so dependent on yearly weather variations, nonetheless many chimed in that the decrease was a sign that environmental-protection efforts were working.

Unfortunately, the news for this year is decidedly mixed.  Again, like those who became over-excited last year, many may become overly gloomy at this latest report -- but it’s important to bear in mind that ultimately only long term trends paint the true picture.

In 2008 the European Space Agency (ESA) reported that the ozone hole over the Antarctic grew in both size and amount of ozone lost from 2007.  While still not as large as the hole in 2006, the hole marks the reverse of a year of gains.

Ozone, O3, is a special chemical that exists in a thin layer found 25 km above the Earth in the upper atmosphere.  This chemical blocks ultraviolet radiation, helping protect marine life, and protecting humans against skin cancer and cataracts.  Unfortunately, this protective layer is being broken down by volatile halogens, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).  While most of these compounds have been banned for decades by the 1987 Montreal Protocols, they remain in the atmosphere for decades, destroying massive amounts of ozone.  This exacerbates yearly natural losses due to cold temperatures.

The ozone hole for 2008 reached a maximum size of 27 million km2, compared to 25 million km2 in 2007, and 29 million km2 in 2006 (approximately the size of North America).  The overall CFC picture has remained relatively unchanged in the last several years, rather, the key difference in the hole size has been the weather.  During the Southern Hemisphere's winter, the air over Antarctica is cut off from warmer airflow by the polar vortex.  This leads to the formation of stratospheric clouds (PSCs).  These clouds contain halogen pollution, which is energy by sunlight, forming radicals.  These radicals go on to breakdown ozone, leading to the formation of an ozone hole.

Julian Meyer-Arnek of the German Aerospace Centre (DLR), who participated in the ESA's data analysis, commented on the 2007-2008 shift, stating, "In 2007 a less concentric and larger polar vortex led to an early onset of the ozone destruction in the sunlit parts of the polar vortex.  Therefore, we saw an ozone hole formation in the beginning of September 2007 which corresponded to the average behaviour of the years 1995-2006."

He continues, "In 2008 a more concentric polar vortex led to a delay of the onset of the ozone destruction of about one week. The preconditioning of the polar chemistry was about the same for both years, although in 2008 the temperatures were slightly below the 2007 temperatures leading to slightly improved formation of PSCs.  Since the polar vortex remained undisturbed for a long period, the 2008 ozone hole became one of the largest ever observed."

The thinnest areas of ozone measured just 120 Dobson Units this year, just slightly better than the 100 Dobson Unit minimum in 2006.  Dobson Units are the standard method of measuring ozone, and is based on the height of the column of ozone at a specific location.  The latest measurements come courtesy of the Scanning Imaging Absorption Spectrometer for Atmospheric Cartography (SCIAMACHY) atmospheric sensor onboard ESA’s Envisat, the Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment (GOME) aboard ESA’s ERS-2 and its follow-on instrument GOME-2 aboard EUMETSAT’s MetOp.

While yearly variations may not bear great significance, it is important to closely monitor ozone levels to detect trends, the ESA's top researchers say.  Professor Meyer-Arnek states, "In order to detect these signs of recovery, a continuous monitoring of the global ozone layer and in particular of the Antarctic ozone hole is crucial."

The ESA's measurements this year were special as it used data collected by students from the ESA’s Advanced Atmospheric Training Course at Oxford University.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
So....
By FITCamaro on 10/9/2008 5:27:40 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
While most of these compounds have been banned for decades by the 1987 Montreal Protocols, they remain in the atmosphere for decades, destroying massive amounts of ozone. This exacerbates yearly natural losses due to cold temperatures.


So perhaps its getting colder?




RE: So....
By Denigrate on 10/9/2008 5:35:00 PM , Rating: 4
Or maybe this is a natural cycle. Looked like 2002 nearly closed the hole based on their graph.


RE: So....
By ThePooBurner on 10/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: So....
By apcguru on 10/9/2008 6:56:34 PM , Rating: 5
When will you ever realize that humans do have a significant impact on the planet in oh so many ways?

Stop denying the fact that we are the major reason for several catastrophes on Earth including the problem of the reduced ozone layer.

Without us there would be forests on most of the planet, not farmland as there is now. Fifty percent of mammal species wouldn't be on the brink of extinction. There would be plenty of fish in our oceans. There would be no dangerously high concentrations of heavy metals and pesticides in fish. There would be no toxic lake in Canada due to their experiments in extracting oil from sand, sand that is "conveniently" located under one of the three last boreal forests. We wouldn't have an epidemic of asthma as we do today, likely caused by emissions from our fossil fuel driven engines. Just to name a few things we have wrecked up beyond repair already. There are so many problems - caused by us - noone else.

There are over 6 billion of us. We're a great force on this planet today, and we need to start taking responsibility for our actions. Each and everyone of us.

There is overwhelming proof CFCs break down ozone. Thinking the ozone hole is "just a natural variation" is a blind man's way of convincing himself he is innocent and that all is well. It isn't .


RE: So....
By ThePooBurner on 10/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: So....
By goz314 on 10/9/2008 7:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
So ignorance is the solution in your summation then?


RE: So....
By DigitalFreak on 10/9/2008 9:11:25 PM , Rating: 5
No, I believe it would be murder.


RE: So....
By ThePooBurner on 10/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: So....
By mindless1 on 10/10/2008 1:46:37 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately you are barking up the wrong tree, people are executed for crimes against state, not humanity in any real sense. What are we to do about crimes against humanity if the crime is senseless pollution? The first step would be killing all those who waste power doing senseless things like running a computer to argue about ideals in response to a news article. Hint - this means you and I. You go first, then email me when it's done.


RE: So....
By bupkus on 10/10/2008 3:15:27 AM , Rating: 1
I believe what you are endorsing is "Give me liberty or give You death."


RE: So....
By ThePooBurner on 10/10/2008 1:21:55 PM , Rating: 4
Logic dictates that that is what the phrase means. Make no mistake that it was ever meant in a peaceful way. It is either liberties are maintained and there is peace, or there will be war and death on one side or the other until there is a victor and either freedom remains, or enslavement.

And technically there is no reason to render the sentence differently. It says "give me death." It doesn't specify who's death is being asked for.


RE: So....
By ThePooBurner on 10/9/2008 9:27:09 PM , Rating: 4
No, ignorance is part of the problem. Ignorance mixed with the fear mongering that people of the alarmist camp do create problems out of thin air "that the public is worried about." Of coure they are worried when they are lied to day in and day out about the "horrible cataclysms" that await them "if they don't change now!" The general populous is stupid and ignorant. They are like sheep. And if you make a living by selling products that keep sheep "safe" from the new mystical ghost wolf that can get through your normal fence unless you put this expencive device on it, you aren't going to like it much if people discover that there is no such thing as a ghost wolf. So to make sure that people think they are real you make up a bunch of stuff and pay some false witnesses and scare the masses into thinking they need your product.

So it is with all the alarmists have on their agenda. They fear monger and prey on those who haven't yet learned that there are no mystical ghost wolfs.


RE: So....
By download7 on 10/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: So....
By borismkv on 10/10/2008 1:05:58 AM , Rating: 5
Are you sure? I think Al Gore's charge for public speaking appearances has increased exponentially since his movie came out. Then there are the European governments that are taxing the hell out of people to "fix" the problem, when they really aren't doing a damn thing. Then there are the scientists whose very living depends on them playing three card monte with their data. I'm sorry, but I just don't trust the scientist that has to invent his own statistical methods for his findings to be accurate.


RE: So....
By ThePooBurner on 10/10/2008 3:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
Couldn't


RE: So....
By Denigrate on 10/10/2008 9:59:28 AM , Rating: 5
So tell me why Carbon Credits are a Billion Dollar industry.


RE: So....
By ThePooBurner on 10/10/2008 3:28:14 PM , Rating: 2
agree


RE: So....
By masher2 (blog) on 10/10/2008 10:18:08 AM , Rating: 4
Alarmists don't sell anything? In addition to the previous posters examples on Gore's $100M+ in profits and the burgeoning carbon credits and biofuels industries, surely you're aware that funding to environmental groups now tops $10B per year, along with several billion spent on climate change research.

Alarmist tactics generate a vast deal of money (and power). The ultimate losers in all this are, of course, ourselves.


RE: So....
By ThePooBurner on 10/10/2008 3:30:55 PM , Rating: 2
more.


RE: So....
By quickk on 10/12/2008 9:01:50 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Alarmist tactics generate a vast deal of money (and power).


I Totally agree. Weapons of mass destruction anyone?


RE: So....
By SiliconAddict on 10/9/2008 10:32:53 PM , Rating: 2
I'd rather start on the other end of the scale because it would solve several problems at once.


RE: So....
By Ringold on 10/9/2008 9:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Without us there would be forests on most of the planet, not farmland as there is now.


Without us, there'd be no sentient species around to care. Do grasshoppers appreciate an unencumbered environment?

quote:
We wouldn't have an epidemic of asthma as we do today, likely caused by emissions from our fossil fuel driven engines. Just to name a few things we have wrecked up beyond repair already.


Do you consider the above worth the asthma it has caused? Do keep in mind we'd be living like we did in the early 1800s without it. We have just recently got to a point where we could replace ICE's, and only now because of the prosperity that they created that now allow us these new technologies. Is unparalleled human prosperity worth the damage automobiles have done? No, more than cars are to blame; is most of the damage we've done to the planet worth the unparalleled human prosperity?

If the answer is no, and that answer is representative, I don't think environmentalists will ever be able to sit down peacefully with everyone else; the ideological divide would just be too massive. China and India haven't lifted hundreds of millions of humans from poverty by being nice to the aforementioned grasshoppers. History suggests it's impossible to avoid the damage during the early stages of development; only rich nations can afford environmentalism.


RE: So....
By apcguru on 10/10/2008 2:59:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Without us, there'd be no sentient species around to care. Do grasshoppers appreciate an unencumbered environment?


What I'm hinting at is that the former speaker thinks there is no problem. Environmentalism is just an annoyance to him. As if no damage to the planet has been done and none is being done right now. I cannot let such ignorance go uncommented.

I cannot say whether the grasshopper cares about the state of the planet. But there are other sentient beings on this planet. In some ways chimpanzees are more intelligent than humans, they have photographic memory and beat humans in memory tests every time. They do have emotions as do elephants. It's incredibly arrogant of us to think we're the only sentient being and ultimately defend our polluting habits with the idea of us being the only animal worth anything.

quote:
Do you consider the above worth the asthma it has caused? Do keep in mind we'd be living like we did in the early 1800s without it.


That is a false conclusion. We could likely have arrived at this point without causing as much destruction. Take the ChevronTexaco scandal in the Ecuadorian rainforest. The company deliberately sent toxic waste water straight into the ecosystem to increase profits.

Environmentalism will not magically come into existence, and our current monetary system will never solve neither world hunger nor poverty.

What has been done has been done, it cannot be changed. I enjoy my materialistic wealth, even tough I live a fairly humble life with no car and a flat of only 41 sqm. I'm not saying it has been the wrong course of action. But I am certain we could have arrived at this level of materialistic wealth without destroying so much of the planet.

What comes next is that which concerns me. Will we continue as we've done using up every resource, polluting everything possible for improved profit? To view pollution of the planet as an "acceptable externality" to improve profit. Or will we use our new gained knowledge and technology to improve our manners towards the planet?

If profit is all that matters to those who oppose the environmental movement I fear there will be no great forests for me to visit and no wild animals for my future children to see.

The ideological divide has two sides, I am neither an alarmist nor a blind materialistic consumer. I demand the use of common sense. The planet is too valuable to me to be harmed any further.


RE: So....
By Denigrate on 10/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: So....
By masher2 (blog) on 10/10/2008 10:37:00 AM , Rating: 1
> "our current monetary system will never solve neither world hunger nor poverty."

If by "our current monetary system" you mean capitalism, then it has done far more to decrease both hunger and poverty than any other force on Earth. In any capitalist nation today, starvation is essentially unknown, and poverty rates have been on the decline for centuries.

> "We could likely have arrived at this point without causing as much destruction"

What destruction? The total biomass of the planet is actually increasing, not decreasing. The actual species count has decreased slightly true...but the raw number of living creatures is going up, not down.

> " In some ways chimpanzees are more intelligent than humans"

More intelligent than some posters here, perhaps-- but not people in general. Chimpanzees are nowhere near as intelligent as humans. Memory is not intelligence. A $30 flash card has a better memory than Einstein...but its creativity, insight, deductive powers and problem solving ability is zero.


RE: So....
By snownpaint on 10/10/2008 2:25:09 PM , Rating: 2
Kudos..

100+ years ago, coal heat was all the rage, causing stocking to melt in the acidic rain in cities. Kerosene was the biggest interest in start up refineries and gas was discarded into streams. Stream health was terrible due to runoff pollution and no real concern by the public.
We have come along way since then, and general pollution way down in the USA. If we can reduce general waste on simple things: Product Packaging, Disposable products, non-biodegradable plastics and Increase products manufactured with or from recyclable materials. It would make a bigger dent in our personal pollution and CO2 emissions then everyone driving Electric Cars, or solar panels on your roof. Plus it doesn't involve redesigning a market, industry or method of transportation, just some incentives and subsidiaries for companies to go that direction.

34 lbs of garbage per week per household.
(landfill (or burnt in trash to power plants) material not including recycled material)
18.05 lbs of CO2 per week per household. (recyclable material removed).
Based on info from a few environmental websites, so the numbers are not that trustworthy, but even a 40% error still shows where our mass of personal pollution is coming from.

Worrying about global warming and ozone holes, when a study of such magnitude and time has only had a few decades to produce information to generate a conclusion is silly.. The world is too big to make accurate conclusions on our effect on its climate in the past 200 years with only 20 years of detailed study. Its like predicting how much weight someone will gain in their life based on the first 8 years of life. At the same time, we do know that eating only hamburgers for those first 8 years will make you heavier compared to others eating healthy during that time. The same can be said about current studies of the earth's climate; current pollution output will effect the earth for the worse, however, this info can not account for our direct effect of current climate trends nor do we have another earth to compare it to.


RE: So....
By xyxer on 10/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: So....
By masher2 (blog) on 10/10/2008 4:01:33 PM , Rating: 1
> "take a walk in vancouver, canada, or los angeles us... 1000s of homeless begging on the street "

Compared to a population of 300 million, a few thousand homeless is a microscopic population....especially when the vast majority of those homeless are so due to mental, drug abuse or other problems, rather than economic conditions.

Contrast that to any major city, circa 18th Century, where a substantial percentage of the population was actually likely to starve to death any given year. Or contrast it to the standard of living in any country which spurns capitalism entirely, such as Cuba, North Korea, or a former FSU republic.

> "? Like number of cockroaches in new york increased... "

No, like the fertility of the planet -- as measured by total biomass -- has increased substantially in the past century. There is no great environmental catastrophe.

> "you sound like... someone that could use a bit more education, or at least get out house /country and travel a bit"

Given that I've lived in three different countries, visited nearly 50 more, and both my prior passports had to have additional pages stapled in to hold entrance/exit stamps, I think I've travelled a fair amount.

However, "travel" isn't the issue here, knowledge is...especially the perspective a reasonable knowledge of social history brings. Perhaps you should try that yourself, and you'd find yourself less gullibly susceptible to the latest apocalyptic tales from the doom-of-the-month club.


RE: So....
By xyxer on 10/10/2008 6:14:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Compared to a population of 300 million, a few thousand homeless is a microscopic population....especially when the vast majority of those homeless are so due to mental, drug abuse or other problems, rather than economic conditions.

Ideological things aside (I am from ex-communist country dude:-))... homelessness is due to shitty luck, and no economic opportunities. Poverty induces drug abuse, crime, prostitution where else are you going to turn to with wages ever low, no job opportunities and shitty economy ?

Fine you may have travelled but you still sound like a page out of McCain/Palin campaign handbook... which is not .... how shall we put it?


RE: So....
By mmatis on 10/10/2008 4:25:20 PM , Rating: 1
More applicable to you, city boy. The homeless are mainly mental cases that belong in an institution, but our wonderful Legal System maggots won't let them be sent there. But we can thank the filthy maggot pigs for that. Great job, government!


RE: So....
By xyxer on 10/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: So....
By bodar on 10/10/2008 5:21:46 PM , Rating: 2
Hooboy, talk about barking up the wrong tree. You may want to check someone's post history before calling them out as being uneducated. You may not agree with his opinions (or even his style of criticism), but his topical knowledge is both broad and deep.


RE: So....
By nah on 10/11/2008 12:43:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If by "our current monetary system" you mean capitalism, then it has done far more to decrease both hunger and poverty than any other force on Earth. In any capitalist nation today, starvation is essentially unknown, and poverty rates have been on the decline for centuries.


A red herring if there ever was one--capitalism has existed for a very long time in various guises such as traditional economies--but it has never been the cure all or end all for anything--Western economies developed very rapidly because of improvements in tech--not the economy

Also, poverty rates have not been in decline for centuries---during the 60's--due to Kennedy's pro-active policies, poverty rates fell from 22 to 11 %---then climbed up slowly under Reagan---and have stayed that way since


RE: So....
By masher2 (blog) on 10/11/2008 4:58:32 PM , Rating: 1
> "poverty rates have not been in decline for centuries---during the 60's--due to Kennedy's pro-active policies, poverty rates fell from 22 to 11 %"

A statement that is not only factually incorrect, but a red herring to boot. When Kennedy was assassinated, the official poverty rate stood at 19%. It didn't hit 11% until 1974 (five years after Nixon took office). Today, it stands at 12.5%.

However those figures are utterly meaningless, because the definition of poverty has continually changed over that period. Today, it doesn't account vast amounts of noncash government benefits, such as food stamps, free or low-rent housing, free or nearly-free medical care for low-income recipients, student grants, and dozens of other programs.

In 1960, a family "in poverty" might well live in a one-room shack with no consumer goods at all, and be in very real danger of starving to death. They wouldn't have a washer, a refrigerator, a TV, a car, or even telephone service. Their clothes would be hand-made or donated, and they couldn't even dream of owning a car.

Today, a family can make $2,000/m in direct income, plus another $3,000/m in indirect benefits, live in a well-maintained four-bedroom government-provided home, with all appliances, air-conditioning, phone and cable service. They'll eat well, drive a car or two, their children will have Nintendos and designer clothes and shoes -- and they'll still be "in poverty".

Not only does the official poverty definition today exclude the massive growth in government aid to low-income families, it's defined in such a manner that "poverty" effectively can't be eliminated. The actual threshold is recalculated annually based on the median national income. If everyone's salary was instantly quadrupled, the same people will still be officially considered "poor". . . even though they'd have enough money to drive Mercedes and take monthly trips to the Caribbean.


RE: So....
By nah on 10/12/2008 3:46:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It didn't hit 11% until 1974 (five years after Nixon took office)


That's because Nixon didn't dismantle the policies that Kennedy/Johnson had left behind

quote:
In 1960, a family "in poverty" might well live in a one-room shack with no consumer goods at all, and be in very real danger of starving to death


Exactly how many people starved to death in the 1960s--there was a greater probability of getting firebombed by the KKK

quote:
The "Orshansky Poverty Thresholds" form the basis for the current measure of poverty in the U.S. Mollie Orshansky was an economist working for the Social Security Administration (SSA). Her work appeared at an opportune moment. Orshansky's article was published later in the same year that Johnson declared war on poverty. Since her measure was absolute (i.e., did not depend on other events), it made it possible to objectively answer whether the U.S. government was "winning" this war. The newly formed United States Office of Economic Opportunity adopted the lower of the Orshansky poverty thresholds for statistical, planning, and budgetary purposes in May 1965.


quote:
However those figures are utterly meaningless, because the definition of poverty has continually changed over that period.


Completely incorrect--as you can see--there have been minor changes, like --
quote:
Two changes were made to the poverty definition in 1969. Thresholds for non-farm families were tied to annual changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rather than changes in the cost of the economy food plan. Farm thresholds were raised from 70 to 85% of the non-farm levels. In 1981, further changes were made to the poverty definition. Separate thresholds for "farm" and "female-householder" families were eliminated. The largest family size category became "nine persons or more."[13] Apart from these changes, the U.S. government's approach to measuring poverty has remained static for the past forty years.


quote:
Today, a family can make $2,000/m in direct income, plus another $3,000/m in indirect benefits, live in a well-maintained four-bedroom government-provided home, with all appliances, air-conditioning, phone and cable service. They'll eat well, drive a car or two, their children will have Nintendos and designer clothes and shoes -- and they'll still be "in poverty".


This is not the truth--the last time I checked, the OPL was around USD 17,600 for a one family unit--hardly enough for A/C s or two cars--and by this definition, 36.5 million people are officially in the PL as of 2006.


RE: So....
By masher2 (blog) on 10/12/2008 11:06:24 AM , Rating: 1
> "Exactly how many people starved to death in the 1960s"

Learn your history. Hunger and malnutrion were widespread in 1960. Kennedy's presidential contained a large amount of anti-hunger activists. The Food Stamp program was created for the very real reason that malnutrition -- especially among the rural poor -- was widespread. Today, overnutrition is a far larger health problem. Malnutrition in the US has been essentially eliminated.

Worldwide, the rates have dropped dramatically as well. Today, the number of children dying from malnutrition is 1/4 the rate set in 1960...thanks to capitalism and it's effects:

http://www.economist.com/world/international/displ...

> "there have been minor changes..."

Congratulations on quoting Wikipedia, but again, you miss the point. Since 1960, the major change has been the vast expansion of government aid programs which don't count as income. The Food Stamp Act didn't even pass until Johnson was in office....and throughout the 1970s, the program expanded some five times faster than inflation. Today, the average food stamp recipient receives over $600/m alone...and not a penny of that counts towards income, not to mention thousands of dollars of other non-counted benefits.

The facts are clear. A family living "in poverty" today has a standard of living above what the average middle class citizen did 50 years ago. Standards of livings continue to dramatically improve -- thanks to capitalism.


RE: So....
By nah on 10/12/2008 12:49:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Learn your history. Hunger and malnutrion were widespread in 1960. Kennedy's presidential contained a large amount of anti-hunger activists


I did--perhaps you miss my point--no one actually died of malnutrition

quote:
Congratulations on quoting Wikipedia, but again, you miss the point


Perhaps so do you---I was addressing your point where you had stated that there had essentially been no changes to the poverty count

quote:
The facts are clear. A family living "in poverty" today has a standard of living above what the average middle class citizen did 50 years ago. Standards of livings continue to dramatically improve -- thanks to capitalism.


This has as much to do with capitalism as a grasshopper--standards of living improved primarily due to advancements in tech---air conditioning, better quality food, cars etc---these did not have anything to do with capitalism per se---you cannot , for example, credit the way minds work intellectually with capitalism---intelligent people think differently not because they want to get rich quick, but because they genuinely like tinkering with nature--


RE: So....
By masher2 (blog) on 10/11/2008 5:07:31 PM , Rating: 2
> "capitalism has existed for a very long time in various guises such as traditional economies--but it has never been the cure all or end all for anything"

Nothing is the "cure all" for everything. Capitalism is merely the most efficient system we know of for converting resources into goods and services. Better forms might well exist -- but if so, we've not yet discovered any.

Furthermore, capitalism has only existed in a well-refined state about the 19th century. Prior to the invention of technologies such as the stock market, the commodities market, the patent system, and other such innovations, capitalism was still very crude.

It was, however, still much more effective than systems which came before it. The primitive merchant capitalism of the Renaissance was the primary driver that boosted standards of livings beyond what they were during the Dark Ages.
While p

> "Western economies developed very rapidly because of improvements in tech"

You miss the forest for the trees. By allowing people to profit off their ideas and innovations, capitalism rapidly spurs the generation of other technologies. Do you think its an accident that capitalist nations regularly lead the world in technology, whereas socialist nations do not?


RE: So....
By nah on 10/12/2008 3:58:06 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You miss the forest for the trees. By allowing people to profit off their ideas and innovations, capitalism rapidly spurs the generation of other technologies


Hardly. No capitalist country allowed tech to be distributed to other countries--a very sensible example would be the garments industry---no UK mill worker/master spinner was allowed to emigrate to the US in the 1790s--until an entrepreneur who worked at a mill came along and memorised the palns for manufacturing spindles/looms--I forget who exactly. IP rights were very zealously guarded--and progress was not always rewarded---the city council of Danzig, for example---ordered the inventor of the loom to be drowned in 1579, Florence issued an edict in 1299 banning bankers from issuing Arabic numerals---China had as capitalistic a system as the kingdoms/fiefdoms of Western Europe---why didn't it get ahead from 1400 onwards--even though it was far advanced at the manufacture of certain things like paper ? If you thinks like an economist you will find that these answers defy any simple explanation--sure, capitalism is efficient---but you have to spend 500 billion dollars every twenty years or so trying to combat greed--remember the S&L scandals of the eighties---USD 500 billion was pumped in the economy back then---and this happens in many capitalist countries


RE: So....
By masher2 (blog) on 10/12/2008 11:16:37 AM , Rating: 2
> "IP rights were very zealously guarded--and progress was not always rewarded---the city council of Danzig, for example---ordered the inventor of the loom to be drowned in 1579"

You make my point for me. These things happened because the patent system (an integral part of modern capitalism) had not yet been invented. The patent system is one of the primary reasons for the rapid, widespread growth of technology in the 19th and 20th century. For the first time in history, there was a financial motive to make your innovations public, rather than zealously keeping them secret.

> "remember the S&L scandals of the eighties---USD 500 billion was pumped in the economy "

I most certainly do. It stemmed from the same causes as this crisis today: government interference sending wrong signals to the market, leading to an overheated real estate market that eventually collapsed, taking out banks which had heavily lent in that sector. Worse, the government's decision to socialize banking risk meant taxpayer's had to pick up the tab-- rather than the banks themselves. Were the US truly capitalist, that crisis (nor this one) would have occured.

Furthermore, do you think such events only occur in the US? Neo-socialist China has been hit by this crisis even harder than has the US, despite the fact their own real estate market is still booming:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&si...


RE: So....
By nah on 10/12/2008 1:06:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I most certainly do. It stemmed from the same causes as this crisis today: government interference sending wrong signals to the market, leading to an overheated real estate market that eventually collapsed,


Here I must respectfully disagree--the main reason then,as now, was greed--people like G Gordon Gecko are not as extinct as you might think--remember--Wall Street (the movie)was made in 1987--people like Ivan Boesky, among others

quote:
Furthermore, do you think such events only occur in the US? Neo-socialist China has been hit by this crisis even harder than has the US, despite the fact their own real estate market is still booming


No I don't--I stated that they occur everywhere--in any event--China is socialist only by name---this wouldn't have happened if it was isolated


RE: So....
By Etsp on 10/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: So....
By DeathBooger on 10/9/2008 11:13:05 PM , Rating: 2
Hey brainiac. Stop using your PC, leave your home, and go live in the woods. Otherwise, you're part of this "problem" too and have no business preaching.


RE: So....
By Regs on 10/10/2008 9:03:26 AM , Rating: 2
The planet will be here long after we're gone, so don't worry. You're not saving anything. This Earth survived ice ages, meteor showers, volcanoes, plate tectonics, plagues, mass floods, mass extensions, and drastic climate changes.

Anything short of the Earths core cooling down or the sun exploding, and it will survive. Maybe we should go back in time and tell the dinosaurs to make sure they you use bio-diesel fuel in their cars?

I'm not saying we should be totally irresponsible. I would rather walk my dog in green fields with a blue sky above, than on concrete in acid rain.


RE: So....
By Regs on 10/10/2008 9:12:44 AM , Rating: 1
I forgot to add.

The human race will end one day, I find it to be an inevitability. However it will be nothing caused from our own precognition or doing. Heck, I even think our race will survive a nuclear holocaust - it won't be pretty but we will survive.

I guess extreme environmentalism is a liberal view. Though I like to think it's just a group of people in denial with the fact that all livings must die sooner or later and they , themselves, are afraid of death.


RE: So....
By snownpaint on 10/10/2008 2:51:17 PM , Rating: 2
I have asked this questions many times over my years when the conversation turns in this direction..

How many years do you give the Human Race?


RE: So....
By Regs on 10/10/2008 7:39:45 PM , Rating: 2
I look upon time as no more than an idea, and I consider eternity as another possibility


RE: So....
By masher2 (blog) on 10/10/2008 10:11:54 AM , Rating: 1
> "Without us there would be forests on most of the planet, not farmland"

Few things demonstrate better than this statement the hatred for humanity displayed by radical environmentalists. Farms grow food for people; Forests do not. By any rational or ethical consideration, farmland is a social good, not an evil.

By the way, for the past 100 years, land under cultivation has been decreasing (and forested area increasing) in the US and Europe.

> "There is overwhelming proof CFCs break down ozone."

Sure. There is even more proof that FUV from the sun creates ozone continually...and solar cycles have a large effect on total ultraviolet output. Furthermore, it's clear that ozone production is a self-regulating process with negative feedback -- the more ozone that is destroyed, the more FUV that gets through, which in turn increases ozone production.


RE: So....
By masher2 (blog) on 10/10/2008 10:25:45 AM , Rating: 2
> "We wouldn't have an epidemic of asthma as we do today, likely caused by emissions from our fossil fuel driven engines"

Oops -- by every standard the EPA measures, air quality has drastically improved the past 30 years. Particulates-- down. VOCs-- down. NOx: down. ground-level ozone: down. Airbone mercury: down. Airborne lead: down. Many of these are down by an astounding 75-95%.

No one knows exactly why asthma rates are increasing, but the best explanation is simply that young children spend more and more time indoors, leading to less exposure to outside air, with its innoculating effects from pollen and other factors.


RE: So....
By webstorm1 on 10/10/2008 11:31:08 AM , Rating: 5
One of the professors at my university is studying this right now. With a higher rate of parasites (undeveloped countries), asthma and allergy simply do not exist. The idea being that if your immune system is busy with a real threat, it doesn't have time for fake threats.

Kinda of like a lot of groups in developed countries. If you don't have war, famine, and illness to deal with, you make stuff up ;P


RE: So....
By LostInLine on 10/10/2008 12:06:45 PM , Rating: 2
Webstorm1,

I love it. That is one of the greatest posts I've ever read.

I think you hit the nail on the head!


RE: So....
By metasin on 10/10/2008 12:57:38 PM , Rating: 2
There is data to suggest that indoor air quality is degrading as our buildings get older. Possibly due to increases in molds and paticulate matter as building material ages. This explains increase in asthma especially in poorer populations in cities.

I would suggest we cut down more trees to build newer homes.


RE: So....
By xyxer on 10/10/2008 5:31:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oops -- by every standard the EPA measures, air quality has drastically improved the past 30 years. Particulates-- down. VOCs-- down. NOx: down. ground-level ozone: down. Airbone mercury: down. Airborne lead: down. Many of these are down by an astounding 75-95%.


Precisely because of greens you so profusely hate. Remember Nixon's years ? hate towards unleaded gasoline... world will end if smoke stacks will be required to have filters installed ? Funny I remember hearing same idiocy you spout in the 70s... And then hear those same moronic neo-con stuff again. So here is my suggestion if you think that humans do not cause polution... lock yourself in garage, while stepping on gas of your SUV. Breath deeply the pleasurable CO while thinking of killing greenpeace.


RE: So....
By clovell on 10/10/2008 11:49:09 AM , Rating: 2
Then fix it. We put men on the moon. Ozone is a byproduct of many ordinary chemical processes involved in manufacturing. So, fill the hole.


RE: So....
By geddarkstorm on 10/10/2008 1:25:10 PM , Rating: 3
Ozone is naturally unstable and highly reactive. It degrades on its own in short order. The "ozone hole" only exists for 3 months out of the year during the Antarctic winter when almost no light is striking the area and you get that polar vortex that sucks high stratospheric air, like the ozone layer, lower into the atmosphere where it can react with products like CFCs (which sit several kilometers below ozone and in inactive forms anywhere else in the atmosphere).

Now, sunlight is what produces ozone in our atmosphere. It has a nice equilibrium reaction where sunlight both creates ozone and destroys it - it's this equilibrium that allows ozone to absorb solar energy and from the far UV spectrum to prevent it from striking the earth's surface. Also, because the reaction is in equilibrium, CFCs and other compounds can never destroy the planet's ozone layer: the more the kinetic rate to decompose ozone is increased, the more the rate for formation will increase, and you'll actually absorb more sunlight than otherwise (since the equilibrium constant, K, is equal to k/k' where k is the kinetic rate of formation in this instance, and k' is the kinetic rate of decomposition in this instance). Take away the light, however, like over the Antarctic during those months and you'll get your hole as ozone cannot be replenished.

This is simple chemistry.

Another thing I find funny is how people overlook the massive amounts of ozone that build up around the hole only when it exists - often times higher than anywhere else on the planet.


RE: So....
By geddarkstorm on 10/10/2008 1:29:49 PM , Rating: 3
To clarify, for those less chemically inclined: CFC's are catalysts of the ozone decomposition reaction; that is, they increase the kinetic rate but themselves are not products or reactants, and are not used up. This means the ozone equilibrium reaction does /not changed/ in the presence or absence of CFCs, only the kinetics, which is why the equilibrium constant, K, applies in the presence or absence of CFCs. Since K is a constant, it cannot changed, so if one kinetic rate goes up or down, the other must do so in tandem.

Without sunlight though, there's no equilibrum reaction in the first place and ozone just breaks down, sped up by CFC catalysis.


RE: So....
By clovell on 10/10/2008 6:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for explaining all that. I was not aware of that.


RE: So....
By Screwballl on 10/10/2008 8:57:12 PM , Rating: 2
When will people realize that they are having almost NO impact on this planet? CFCs and all these other chemicals? The Earth has its own filtration system in place. Man has made MAYBE 0.000000003% of a difference while on this planet. A single volcano can put out 1 trillion percent more pollutants and earth altering effects than the whole of mankind can. any and all pollutants mentioned are only a pollutant to some living things (note I said SOME, not ALL), not the planet itself. The planet heals itself, this is part of nature and reality.

The hole in the Ozone has been proven to be around for hundreds of millions of years.

Without us there would be about the same amount of forests than there is today - because the planet has a specific balance. If there is a shortage of trees based on a large lightning started fire, it increases trees elsewhere. If there is an excess of trees, the lack of CO2 makes trees grow slower and smaller.
Toxic lake in Canada? The earth may have eventually pushed these oils to the surface someday causing the same thing we see today.
Fish would have the same amount of metal due to the volcanic materials which include mercury and other toxic metals found naturally in this planet. We just happen to be moving it from one location to another.
Asthma has been reported since early medical logs were kept long before the industrial revolution. It is not due to modern day pollutants, it is due to a human condition of ill-developed lungs.

Anyone who believes otherwise is an obvious hypocrite. Do you ride your bike everywhere you go 100% of the time? Do you not use ANY electricity at all (which obviously is not true since you're posting this online)? Do you live like a caveman? If not then you are a hypocrite for endorsing ANY man-made global warming point of view.

This planet and any other we happen to mess with in the future will ALWAYS balance itself out naturally. It may take 10,000 years but it will happen. It has many times before from comets and volcanoes and such, it will again many times after man is extinct.


RE: So....
By Megaknight on 10/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: So....
By masher2 (blog) on 10/10/2008 1:30:43 PM , Rating: 4
It's even more astonishing how the environmental movement is driven more by anti-Americanism and anti-industrialism moreso than any real concern for what's best for humanity.


RE: So....
By geddarkstorm on 10/10/2008 1:31:58 PM , Rating: 2
Or the one who doesn't understand physical laws and chemistry to know that this is a non-issue.


RE: So....
By ThePooBurner on 10/10/2008 1:44:35 PM , Rating: 1
I have no problem regognizing and trying to fix actual problems. I love the outdoors and camping and enjoying nature. However, I am smart enough to realize when there is actually a problem and a need for change and when there isn't. Simply looking at the way things work at the polls and with the electro-magnetic field, and with the sun cycles it is obvious, when looking at the full picture and not ruling out the things that aren't convienient to your agenda, that this is not actually a problem that is within our control. Or rather, it is obvious this isn't a problem. We have only been observing in a limited way how the earth works scientifically for a very short period. To see somethign we haven't before doesn't automatically mean that it is some horrible man-made problem that needs fixing.

Looking at history we can see the evidence of the very thigns we are seeing now happenign in nature cycles. For instance the little ice age in the 1300s corrisponds with the massive droughts that plauged the natives of america. What is being predicted by those looking at the sun cycles that dictate this? That we are headed for another one and that all signs point to more droughts. Ths is becaue of global cooling from sun cycles. The alarmists are trying to blame it on warming that isn't actually happening. See how they lie and make a problem that doesn't exist?

Now, that isn't to say droughts aren't a problem, but seeing as we know it's coming we should plan and prepare for it, not waste billions trying to solve the "warming problem". We would be better off researching how to coap with the natural process of the world and what we will need to do to survive the little ice age we know is coming.


RE: So....
By FITCamaro on 10/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: So....
By apcguru on 10/9/2008 7:02:59 PM , Rating: 2
If this is your point, that the ozone hole is "only a natural variation", please give us proof of your claim.

Presently all the evidence supports the theory that CFCs break down ozone and that humans are the only cause of CFCs in the atmosphere.

If you think it's a natural variation, but have no proof, you're opinion is best kept to yourself as your own private religion. It is of no use to anyone trying to learn more about the problem.


RE: So....
By BladeVenom on 10/9/2008 7:15:17 PM , Rating: 3
Give me proof that it's man made. The hole has been there since it was measurable. We have plenty of ozone. The common name for it is smog.


RE: So....
By apcguru on 10/9/2008 7:45:55 PM , Rating: 3
I will gladly provide proof. Will you read it and change view?

For proof you may read this for example: http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/esthag/19...

It goes through the entire history from the uncertainties at first when data was not available through how NASA and NOAA got involved and the sever restrictions on CFCs took place. it has plenty of references for further reading to check every statement.

Smog is not made primarily of ozone. Ozone never used to be formed at ground level in today's levels either. Ozone is toxic to inhale, it's a free radical in the body and can cause cancer. Ozone is supposed to be made by UV light high in the atmosphere.

The problem is we put CFCs in the atmosphere, a chemical proven to break down ozone.

Try searching "ozone cfc" on http://scholar.google.com to find more scientific reports about the issue.

You will find no peer reviewed articles claiming humans have nothing to do with the decreased ozone layer.


RE: So....
By Denigrate on 10/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: So....
By masher2 (blog) on 10/10/2008 10:43:06 AM , Rating: 2
Try this paper (a much more recent one than the bulk of the 1990-era CFC research):
quote:
Data from satellite, balloon, and ground-station measurements show that ozone loss is strongly correlated with cosmic-ray ionization-rate variations ... These findings suggest that dissociation of chlorofluorocarbons by capture of electrons produced by cosmic rays and localized in polar stratospheric cloud ice may play a significant role in causing the ozone hole .
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v87/i7/e078501

Golly, I wonder why CNN didn't run that story?


RE: So....
By FITCamaro on 10/9/2008 8:45:41 PM , Rating: 3
I meant that the enlargening of the hole this year was natural as even the article states that colder weather can cause the hole to grow.


RE: So....
By mmatis on 10/9/2008 8:55:34 PM , Rating: 4
You might want to check the correlation between UARS data and GOES West following Mount Pinatubo a few years ago. As the GOES West records the ash cloud heading around the globe, UARS miraculously shows the ozone disappearing in the same location! How dastardly of man to spew all those chlorofluorocarbons from the volcano! But if you'd get your head out of your butt, you'd understand that:
1. ChloroFluoroCarbons are heavier than air. There is no natural phenomenon that readily moves them up in the atmosphere at a higher level of concentration than they are at the surface. If there was a significant concentration of them at ground level, the AC folks couldn't do freon leak checks. But they don't seem to have any problems.
2. Methyl Chloride is (slightly) lighter than air. Guess what? It's a major constituent in sea water. Guess what happens every time a volcano erupts? Thousands of tons of sea water spew into the atmosphere, right up to the correct level. And methyl chloride eats ozone for lunch.

Didn't the One True Mick tell you these things as part of your religious training?


RE: So....
By AssassinX on 10/9/2008 9:36:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
1. ChloroFluoroCarbons are heavier than air. There is no natural phenomenon that readily moves them up in the atmosphere at a higher level of concentration than they are at the surface.


Just thought you might find this interesting; at least I did.

quote:
Once they mix through the troposphere, CFC molecules eventually move into the stratosphere. Thousands of measurements over several decades have firmly proven the existence of these heavier-than-air molecules in the ozone layer.


http://epa.gov/ozone/science/myths/heavier.html


RE: So....
By mmatis on 10/10/2008 6:30:43 AM , Rating: 5
Except those fine "scientists" don't bother telling you that what they're tracing isn't the "chlorofluorcarbons" themselves but instead the ions from their breakdown. And they don't bother telling you their data doesn't even look at the methyl chloride ions up there, which are in FAR larger quantity. Are there chlorofluorocarbons up there? Yeah! But their presence is DWARFED by the natural chlorides thrown up there by volcanoes! What part of "heavier than air" and "lighter than air" don't you understand? Do you think there is NO helium down at ground level because it's "lighter than air"? Guess what? It's a concentration difference! And the concentration of chlorofluorocarbons at ground level (where they are MORE concentrated than at altitude) is at a trace level. Not so for the methyl chloride at altitude.


RE: So....
By AssassinX on 10/10/2008 11:43:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What part of "heavier than air" and "lighter than air" don't you understand? Do you think there is NO helium down at ground level because it's "lighter than air"? Guess what? It's a concentration difference!


First of all calm down man. I wasn't trying to flame you with my response. I was just trying to inform you that there are several ways to bring heavier particles into higher atmospheric pressure.


RE: So....
By sgw2n5 on 10/9/2008 7:11:07 PM , Rating: 5
You do realize that the mechanisms for O3 generation and degradation are VERY well understood chemical reactions, this isn't some kind of global warming voodoo. Certain compounds degrade 03, and these compounds do not exist in nature. Traces of these compounds now can be found in the atmosphere at a higher concentration at or near areas around the ozone hole. Coincidence?


RE: So....
By goz314 on 10/9/2008 7:51:43 PM , Rating: 2
CFCl3 + h? ? CFCl2 + Cl

Cl + O3 ? ClO + O2

ClO + O3 ? Cl + 2 O2

If you don't understand this concept then you should have your high school diploma revoked, assuming you have one that is...


RE: So....
By therealnickdanger on 10/9/2008 9:28:55 PM , Rating: 5
Sorry, I took German, not Spanish.


RE: So....
By mmatis on 10/10/2008 6:59:43 AM , Rating: 2
And the equation ends the same way when you start with methyl chloride, which gets up there in FAR LARGER quantities than the CFCs.


RE: So....
By masher2 (blog) on 10/10/2008 11:00:44 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
CFCl3 + h? ? CFCl2 + Cl

Cl + O3 ? ClO + O2
By that logic, the equation: 2H2+O2 -> 2H20 + (energy) proves indisputably that the 100+ million tons of hydrogen in the atmosphere should cause a massive explosion risk.

When you understand what's wrong with my statement, you'll understand what's wrong with yours.


RE: So....
By mmatis on 10/10/2008 4:28:19 PM , Rating: 2
But Masher isn't the One True Mick, and therefor anything he says can't be the Truth. All Hail AlGore! We must worship the Golden Bull!


RE: So....
By menace on 10/10/2008 11:47:03 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah. Show me the scientific evidence from every year in the 50's that show the ozone over the pole is uniform.

Here's some common sense questions they need to answer to convince me. Why do most of the CFCs appear to rush to the south pole to destroy all the ozone there rather than just destroy the ozone that is above our heads? Are they evil molecules that hate penguins above all other species? Why doesn't the ozone diffuse in to fill the hole?

Perhaps the south pole just has some natural dome of high pressure that tends to the ozone layer away from the center of the continent. The hole is a natural phenomenon. It disappears once in a while similar to why El Nino appears and disappears. Atmospheric cycles.


RE: So....
By Oxonium on 10/11/2008 6:48:48 PM , Rating: 2
Or why does it only appear at the south pole and not the north pole when most of the countries that used CFCs prior are in the northern hemisphere?