Your Thoughts on the Great Ozone Debate? 719
Hrodvitnir asks: "Yesterday the BBC reported that the hole in the ozone layer above the Antarctic is the largest on record. Today CNN says that it is recovering, or at least stabilized. Do we really know what's going on? Is this more bad science/false studies, or are they both partially right?"
Easy (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, sort of (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Easy (Score:5, Informative)
Both are completely right. An elaboration: Wheras the CNN article discusses the stabilization of ozone depletion, the BBC article discusses the size of the Antarctic ozone hole. The BBC piece says, in not so many words, that the size of the ozone depleted region was largest in 2000 and 2003, owing to biennial-ish seasonal fluctuations and weather conditions. The hole might be of similar size THIS year as well for the same reasons. However, to quote from the very same BBC article:
So then, both articles do indeed agree. They were not referring to separate conclusions on the same issue, but instead to different facets of the same phenomenon.Two years ago researchers produced the first evidence that damage to the ozone layer is slowing down; globally, they showed, destruction continues, but at a slower rate than before.
That is down to the Montreal Protocol, established in 1987, which has limited production and use of CFCs and related substances.
But the indications are that the ozone layer will not be back to its pre-industrial condition for at least another 50 years.
Re:Easy (Score:3, Funny)
Technology got us into this (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Technology got us into this (Score:5, Insightful)
If we want to speed up this process, we need to remove CFCs from the stratosphere. I doubt this is feasible, especially without serious side effects.
What I've always wondered (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What I've always wondered (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What I've always wondered (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What I've always wondered (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's a hint: ionizing radiation not allows for the formation of ozone, but also releases free chlorine radicals from CFCs which break down ozone catalytically. A single chlorine ion will on average destroy about a hundred thousand ozone molecules before it leaves the cycle. Chlorine from natural sources has historically been the largest reducer of the
Re:What I've always wondered (Score:2)
Re:What I've always wondered (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No (Score:3, Informative)
BTW, did you know that becau
Re:What I've always wondered (the answer) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I will explain something to you (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, CFCs long life allows them to reach the stratosphere. There, they slowly break down, releasing a constant supply of chlorine ions. This participates in many reactions, most notably Cl + O3 -> ClO + O2; ClO + O -> Cl + O2. Note that the chlorine ion is still left over. This ion goes on to complete thousands of more reactions before it is ultimately lost (to a variety of mechanisms).
And this differes how... (Score:3, Interesting)
And how does this differ from the chlorine ions that reach the stratosphere from volcanic eruptions and a host of other mechanisms?
We're on a planet 3/4 covered with a salt-water ocean. The bulk of the salt is chlorides. The air is FILLED with small crystals of salt, loose ions from it, traces of diatomic chlorine, and a host of other chlorine compounds, due to the e
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Let's see who we have:
Who are you going to believe?
Easy... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Easy... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Easy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:2, Funny)
Depends on how it's 'launched' or how often it's repeated.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
You've got several problems with that.
1) Turner is notably liberal and, if you are right with your stereotypical thinking, would be more likely to report damage to the environment than that it's getting better, but CNN is reporting the opposite.
2) It seems you didn't RTFA, at least the CNN article. Note that it cites a NOAA report.
There have been many reports, even discussed and linked to on here, about how scientists in the Bush administration are constantly forced to alter reports to fit the views of the administration. Since this administration says everything is okay, there is no need to worry, it is only expected to see a report issued from a branch of the US gov. to agree with that statement.
CNN: thanks to Ted Turner. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:CNN: thanks to Ted Turner. (Score:3, Insightful)
Fact is America is moving to the right or at least the right has conned everyone in to think it is. CNN has been getting killed by Fox in cable news ratings so they had two options, try to be completely unlike Fox and try to find an audience or try to be like Fox. Unfortunately they chose the later leading to a situation in which
Re:CNN: thanks to Ted Turner. (Score:4, Informative)
I heard with interest the head of the Coast Guard describing their work and again search and rescue was great, but much of its resources are going to:
A. Buoy replacement to get commercial shipping flowing again
B. Repairing the off shore oil capacity in the Gulf.
Those things are important, but you can consistently tell the Bush administration is more focused on getting the oil industry back on its feet over keeping thousands of poor blacks in New Orleans alive by getting them fresh water. I certainly want gasoline supplies to stabilize but I imagine I would rather people didn't die of dehydration and from drinking contaminated water because we are busy trying to gettin Exxon and Shell on their feet instead.
The obvious complete failure is FEMA should have requisitioned trucks from all points available and started trucking food and water, especially water to the survivors. Private groups and individuals have started doing it because FEMA failed completely in this most basic obvious part of ANY recovery. They didn't get fresh water in to the disaster area. People can survive a distaster without food for a while but people don't last long without water, and when they get thirsty the drink contaminated water, get sick and die. You would think the Republicans would remember the importance of drinking water from the Terry Schiavo case. You only wish they had placed the same importance on this as they did that. They rush Congress in from all points to pass a pointless resolution about here. Congress hasn't yet reconvened or done anything for New Orleans.
I seem to recall yesterday FEMA saying the supplies were en route but it could easily take four days before they actually started getting distributed because of all the Federal, state and local channels they had to be routed through.
One also has to wonder how much of the National Guard's equipment is in Iraq, for example water treatment plants, water and fuel tankers, trucks in particular. 1/3 to 1/4 of the Guard in the disaster area were unavailable because they are in Iraq, you have to wonder how much of the the equipment vital for disaster relief is there too.
Not sure how it will come out in the post mortem investigation but I saw a post here yesterday in which a study in 2004 indicated the levies in New Orleans were in dire need of repair and the money for their repair had been diverted by the Bush administration from the Army Corps of Engineers to the war in Iraq and to homeland security. If that proves to be the case you can scratch one city thanks to the incompetence of the Bush administration.
Re:CNN: thanks to Ted Turner. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think I'm actually representative of all of Slashdot.... Most of the time I'm pretty Libertarian so from where I sit that wasn't really a leftist post, it was an anti stupid government post
"I'm sure the relief effort could have been better and faster."
Well following your logic it doesn't matter what kind of job they do. They just have to do something and people like you will say could have been better, could have been worse.
Fact is disaster relie
Very important (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, America has lost responsibility in the press. It used to be about finding and reporting facts. Now it is about finding both sides to argue
not THAT unusual (Score:2, Informative)
Re:not THAT unusual (Score:3, Interesting)
Ozone Hole != Global Warming (Score:5, Informative)
The ozone hole, which this article is about, is not connected to the separate problem of global climate change as a result of human-produced greenhouse gases. The ozone hole is also a problem which is easier to deal with; the CFCs and particles which cause ozone layer damage fall out of the atmosphere much faster than carbon dioxide.
Re:not THAT unusual (Score:5, Funny)
Sir, it is highly unlikely that chickens will ever roost in the Arctic or Antarctic. Not only could they not withstand the extreme climate they do not have the ability to fly the hundreds of miles over open ocean that would be required to make it to either of those regions. Furthermore chickens are not indigenous to either the Arctic or the Antarctic so they would never "come home" to roost as neither of those regions could be properly called "The Home of Chickens". Your science, sir, is all a shambles. Disgraceful... disgraceful.
Re:not THAT unusual (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, most CO2 emitted by human activities comes from burning fuels. However, I assume you mean forest fires. Those do not affect net CO2 levels over the long term because the carbon in forests had been pulled out of the air within the last few decades. That's not the case for fossil fuels.
Volcanoes?
Despite the popular urban legend that claims otherwise, volcanoes account for about 1% as much CO2 as human activities. Look it up.
of Animals breathing? Decaying animals and plants?
All of the carbon from those sources has been pulled from the air via photosynthesis in the past few years, so no net increase in CO2.
Does factory-created CO2 have a different composition that that made from fires?
Not a different composition from forest fires, but a different source of carbon as explained above.
Hey, guess what, that means they aren't burning coal or wood fires.
Far more coal is being burned per capita to generate electricity than was burned prior to the industrial revolution. As explained above, burning wood has no net effect on CO2 levels beyond the short term.
All carbon released from burning or decaying plant material will generally be recaptured by the next plant that grows to replace the previous one. There is no corresponding mechanism to recapture excess carbon released from fossil fuels. (Other than the process that got the fossil fuels there in the first place: gradual deposit of dead organisms into sedimentary rocks. That's a painfully slow process that is totally overwhelmed by our current rate of release.)
In summary, you really have no clue about how the carbon cycle works.
Re:not THAT unusual (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, if forest fires don't affect net CO2 levels over the long term, then burning fossile fuels (which are plant leftovers) doesn't either (just a bit longer term). Its just re-establishing the "equilibrium" that existed
not all sure... (Score:2, Insightful)
no one has a clue (Score:3, Insightful)
neither side have any idea what is going on with the earth.
the earth will be fine, now and long after humans are wiped from the planet. are we speeding up that process? maybe, maybe not.
Re:no one has a clue (Score:2)
Re:no one has a clue (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, we do. The chemical reactions that result in CFCs depleting ozone are well understood. If you didn't sleep through freshman chemistry, you probably learned about that, acid rain, the greenhouse effect, etc. It's all perfectly valid science.
If you want to debate global warming, that's a separate issue. There is no doubt that humans have done significant damage to the ozone layer.
Re:no one has a clue (Score:2)
I agree completely. We couldn't wipe out life on earth if we dedicated all our efforts to it. It's that last part that I'm worried about.
That we don't know, and some people think that's the same as us being safe and not needing to change anything, is what scares me. We need to know. And in the give and take of "maybe, maybe not" there's a lot to say "maybe" and therefore a lot to say we are screwing ourselves by doing nothing an
you may be right, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, the earth will probably go on its merry way oblivious to the "damage" humans inflict upon it. I think the point of understanding this phenomenon is to prevent the "humans are wiped from the planet" bit from happening sooner than later, particularly due to our own actions.
But if the earth somehow can and does care, I think it'd rather be rid of us sooner....
Translation (Score:2)
Ta-da!
It's not news if it isn't sensational (Score:5, Insightful)
What we need are better educated reporters. And a better educated public. But I'm not holding my breath for that, no matter how polluted the air is.
Assume the worst case scenario (Score:3, Insightful)
Worst case scenario (Score:3, Funny)
Solution: Exterminate all non-plant life on this planet, for the good of the ozone.
RTFA (closely) (Score:5, Insightful)
"There have been signs over the last two years that damage to the ozone layer has reduced, but a full recovery is not expected until around 2050."
Sounds like the same thing CNN is saying to me.
Easy...... (Score:3, Insightful)
Scientists measuring the ozone layer have only been here for about 30 years.
Real measurement for 30 years verses millions of years of unknown history.
Extrapolation is easy if you really don't care.
Re:Easy...... (Score:4, Insightful)
Scientists measuring the ozone layer have only been here for about 30 years.
Real measurement for 30 years verses millions of years of unknown history.
Hmm...now if only we had some sort of material that could trap gasses at the poles and would accrete at a predictable pace hence saving samples of historical atmosphere. Possibly something that starts as a liquid but ends up as a solid?
Re:Easy...... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Easy...... (Score:5, Informative)
It is easy to figure out when the hole appeared because it happened in the last 100 years or so.
Re:Easy...... (Score:3, Insightful)
To be even more specific to this study it's important for casual observers to understand that this data has only been collected since 1995. It's much sexier in a news report to say that, "This is one of the largest ozone holes in the past decade". That sells papers, gets people to pay atte
Another Link (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a good link [spaceref.com] to the story...quite a bit of detail not present in either article cited in the submission.
Interesting that the sources that hold that the hole is gtting worse are European, while the sources that state everything's OK are American.....hmm....
Re:Another Link (Score:3, Informative)
Which is exaggerated and slanderous, but not entirely without truth. Some people (myself included) firmly believe that the weather is out of control because of climate changes (temperatures and amounts of rain are very much out of tune with what they should be where I live, and it's been getting worse in recent years). If you accept that human activity is to blame for the climate changes (of which I'm not
Re:Another Link (Score:3, Informative)
What, you think you're the only person on the planet who thought N.O. was vulnerable? You've been trumpeting this danger to the mountaintops, and yet no one would listen?
"New Orleans had long known it was highly vulnerable to flooding and a direct hit from a hurricane. In fact, the federal government has been working with state and local officials in the region si
political agenda (Score:5, Insightful)
Go look at some stories on democratic underground and you will see stories saying that Bush was responsible for hurricanes because of global warrming and a ton of "scientists" backing that. Look on michael moore.com and cindy sheehan has a post about jews who took soldiers away for war in iraq and not being here to stop the looting ( hello posse comitatus) in New Orleans.
My point, "News" is basically the blog of some reporter with about as much factual basis behind it. (See jason blair)
I'll bite (a little) (Score:3, Informative)
RTFA (Score:2)
Being used to push an agenda (Score:3, Insightful)
RTFA (Score:2)
Not the biggest depletion ever, just the largest in five years.
tan (Score:2, Funny)
There is no "partially right" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:There is no "partially right" (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, who cares? Global warming is baaaad for us and we should do everything in our power to maintain the status quo temperatures, right?
No contradiction, just spin (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, there is a 26-month cycle for equatorial winds that affects the size of the Antarctic hole, so there's a quasi-biennial cycle to the ozone layer hole.
So, the only question is, how do you want to spin it?
The hole is still getting bigger. We need to step up pollution controls. Or
Nothing to see here, the hole is stabilizing at it's current size and we expect it to go back to normal within 50 years, so our current ozone-depleting-compound-pollution policies are fine.
Are we doing the best we can in re: O3 layer? No.
Do we need to do better? I dunno, and apparently, neither does anyone else.
Why _South_ Pole? (Score:2)
I'm not exactly sure what the article submitter (Score:4, Insightful)
The submitter seems to be trying to say that the BBC and CNN articles contradict one another. However, this isn't the case at all. The BBC article is talking about the size of this year's hole; CNN seems to be talking about the size of the hole in a more general over-years sense. CNN is saying that the ozone hole is levelling off in a long-term sense; the BBC is talking about year-to-year fluctuations. The BBC itself even says: There have been signs over the last two years that damage to the ozone layer has reduced, but a full recovery is not expected until around 2050, seeming to support the CNN article.
Moreover, the article submission is misleading. The submission says the 2005 is the largest on record. The BBC says the 2005 hole is one of the largest on record. The BBC itself says: They show that the Antarctic ozone hole was larger in mid-August this year than at the same period in any year since 2000. The 2000 ozone hole was still larger than this year's hole!
CFCs take a certain amount of time to fall out of the atmosphere, and the damage they cause lasts a certain amount of time beyond that. There is no sign in the news here that the Montreal protocol is anything but working; we're jolting back and forth within a certain area but at least the ozone hole is no longer getting worse constantly.
Evolution in Action (Score:5, Funny)
When that happens, a whole bunch of people are going to die from skin cancer and/or will go blind from cataracts, while the survivors who are more resistant to UVs will procreate.
I'd give anything to be around at that time, only to see how the creationism/evolution debate turns out.
It doesn't matter... (Score:3, Informative)
Consult the original studies (Score:3, Informative)
source [agu.org]
The bbc article, unfortunately, is a bit harder to track down...
Who do you trust? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, we don't. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do we really know what's going on?
No.
There, that was easy. Now, as I read somewhere around here the other day, science is not truth nor is it fact. It's a method that attempts to discern both of those things. It's a good method and as time goes on the results of our discoveries show in the things we build and the advancement of our society. So before I continue, I'm not anti-science and have no desire to be branded as some sort of Bible thumper. (Which seems to be the title given to anyone who dares question the perfection of our holy scientists.)
The problem is that humans (whether religious zealots or scientific zealots) rarely want to admit they're on the path to truth. They want to say they've found it, they know what it is and that's all she wrote. No one wants to say that they're trying when they can say that they're successful and make a really big deal out of it. For instance:
People who defend sensational scientific beliefs are just as contradictory as religious nuts. When they're talking about evolution they point to the fact that the changes and cycles take thousands and thousands of years. Geological changes? Even longer. Nature, as a whole moves in very slow patterns and makes very slow changes. It's not in a hurry. However, suddenly we analyse weather for what... 100 years? 200 years? We pluck out a pinhole sized chunk of a 4,000,000,000 year old pie and think that it really tells us anything that's truly long term?
I really love George Carlin's routine on the environment. He make a single statement that really brings it all into focus. Are humans so arrogant that we think we can destory the earth let alone save it?
I have a pretty simple policy on whether or not I believe a particular scientific theory/"discovery" and it works like this: If a "discovery" is made that yields cool new gadgets that improve my quality of life (TV, computers, polyester, bath puffs) then I believe it. If a "discovery" is heavily debated and spends a lot of time coming out of the mouths of the far left and/or the far right, I can usually ignore it and move on with my life. Politically pushed and motivated science is the worst kind. In an ironic twist, science should be scientifically motivated.
Stop telling me we know how everything works or that our methods are perfect and all that's left is time and discovery. In 250 years they're going to poke as much fun at what we know now as we do the science of 1750. Our medicine will be viewed as barbaric and primitive and our ideas on things like quantum physics will be viewed as remedial at best. In fact, with the speed discoveries are made now, the gap may be even bigger in 250 years. Again, this doesn't mean everything we know is bogus, it just means you shouldn't treat it like the be all end all.
Use science as a guide and use it to the best of your abilities. However, putting the level of faith in sensational theories that fundamentalists put in a literal 7 day (24 hours a day) creation of the world really isn't any better.
Scientifically, we're moving in the right direction. We're doing our best. However, deal with the fact that a lot of so-called "science" is politically motivated bullshit. Also deal with the fact that some things that we hold dear now are going to be discarded as we learn more about the universe and its laws and mechanics. With the exception of spotting a huge space object heading for the planet, doomsday science can be summarily ignored.
Re:No, we don't. (Score:5, Insightful)
While I largely agree with most the rest of yrou post, I have to point out that evolution does not need thousands of years. You can observe it's action in 3-7 generations. You don't need a thousand years unless yoru species reproduces very slowly and lives 150 or more years.
Scientifically, we're moving in the right direction. We're doing our best. However, deal with the fact that a lot of so-called "science" is politically motivated bullshit. Also deal with the fact that some things that we hold dear now are going to be discarded as we learn more about the universe and its laws and mechanics. With the exception of spotting a huge space object heading for the planet, doomsday science can be summarily ignored.
Unfortunately it can't all be ignored. While it is a small sample and the information is very localized in the time spectrum... it's all we got, we have to make the best decisions we can with what is available. If it happens to be well supported but wrong, we waste a few billion dollars and some things improve when they didn't have to. If it is right, we're fucked. Given those two options I say take moderate steps in the direction that is supported instead of ignoring it because we lack sufficient datapoints. Find out what is generally supported and make a reasonable pollicy accordingly.
Re:No, we don't. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, suddenly we analyse weather for what... 100 years? 200 years?
Several tens of thousands, thanks to ice core samples. It's possible to gather data on events that happened before recorded history. It may not be perfectly accurate, but it's better than nothing. And even in our lifetime, we've altered the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Models based on past climate changes have been horrible at predicting future climate changes, but that doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and make no decisions whatsoever, or that we're inevitably safe.
Whether or not there's a political debate around a scientific assertion should be irrelevant to the weight of validity that you assign to it. For example, the insurance industustries try to play down the health risks of mold so they don't have to cover mold-ridden houses (which would be incredibly expensive.) But talk to any microbiologist and they'll tell you just what mold can do to you.
Politics is a pretty poor barometer of the truth or falsity of an assertion, I agree. We need to make our decisions based on evidence rather than political ideology. But while politics shouldn't be involved in sciences science should be involved in politics. Or should we just go with our gut feelings?
Will our medicine be considered primitive in the future? I'm sure. Honestly, who said otherwise?
I, for one, would like to see rapid identification of bacterial infections and greater reliance on bacteriophage (viruses which kill bacteria) so that normal intestinal flora are not destroyed. This would allow treating people with only mildly harmful infections, since the side effects of treatment (potential fungal overgrowth, C. Difficile infection, etc.) would not be as bad.
Our techniques for rapidly and cheaply diagnosing pathogens right now are piss poor, and as they improve we'll be able to give very specific, effective treatments with fewer side effects.
Even our legal system could be making better utilization of science. All people have certain mostly benign viruses in them, which are often sexually transmitted. If a court case came up where one person claimed they were raped and another denied doing it, sexual involvement could be demonstrated by showing the two people had a similar set of viruses in their body. Mutation rates of the more steady portions of the virus might be useful for determining the relative date of the event (good for divorce trials, too.)
Of course, more than one virus would have to be used.
Stop telling me we know how everything works or that our methods are perfect and all that's left is time and discovery. In 250 years they're going to poke as much fun at what we know now as we do the science of 1750.
Who, exactly, has been telling you that they know how everything works?
With the exception of spotting a huge space object heading for the planet, doomsday science can be summarily ignored.
So the harm attributed to pesticide usage, lead in the water pipes and in face paint, poor food quality standards, and sexual pandemics... these are just phantoms of our imagination? I'm sure you can think of more.
Sometimes science does identify real threats. And it requires a political movement to get the law to recognize those threats.
The thing is, no matter how little information we have, we still have to make decisions based on that information or else confusion and indecision will paralyze us, socially, scientifically, and politically.
metric vs. english units (Score:3, Funny)
It is clearly a problem with the European satellites.
Pick your errors... (Score:4, Insightful)
- you can fail to find something that's really there, and suffer from its effect,
- or you can find something that's not there, and suffer from spending time/effort/money/angst/blather on it needlessly.
In this instance, we'll could miss figuring out the ozone and suffer the consequences. If that happens, we'll need to make more ozone.
Or we could be wrong about the perceived ozone problem. If that happens. we'll need to make more time/effort/money/angst/blather.
I'm guessing it's going to be easier to come up with replacements for time/effort/money/angst/blather than it will be to order up some replacement ozone.
That's based on our existing experience with replacing resources. This year, between the tsunami and Katrina, we'll be seeing what happens when entire cities, including a modern first-world one, have to be brought back to functioning literally stick by stick, brick by brick.
Yeh the truth is. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:We can't even agree on global warming (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We can't even agree on global warming (Score:4, Funny)
Herb (Score:3, Informative)
Ozone (Score:4, Informative)
The city water department makes ozone to disinfect drinking water. It produces essentially zero carcinogens compared to chlorine. Because ozone can't be relied on to prevent contamination downstream of the treatment plant, chloramine is added as a final step. Any excess ozone is destroyed by catalytic degradation.
I saw this plant roughly 18 years ago when it was dedicated. It's near Sylmar, and was installed to treat water from the formerly prisine, but now less so, Owens Valley.
Re:We can't even agree on global warming (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We can't even agree on global warming (Score:3, Insightful)
"determination of how much ozone was in Antarctica's atmosphere prior to the industrial revolution"
CO2 does not destroy ozone. CFCs destroy ozone. They were not developed until 1928, and didn't become widespread until the 1960s. You're confu
Re:We can't even agree on global warming (Score:5, Interesting)
I did not and do not pretend that there is no scientific consensus on the matter. I also did not say I am anti-climate change. In fact, I made it rather clear that there clearly IS climate change going on. The science that documents this is all but irrefutable. My concerns lie in the research that "proves" that the change is anthropogenic.
CO2 does not destroy ozone.
I didn't say that it does. I asked how we know how much ozone there was in Antarctica's atmosphere before the industrial revolution, since the parent poster to MY post had talked about returning ozone levels to "pre-industrial" normals. How do we know what those levels were? If we do, great, but how?
CFCs destroy ozone. They were not developed until 1928, and didn't become widespread until the 1960s. You're confusing ozone studies with temperature and CO2-level studies.
No, I'm not, I'm quite clear on the difference. Perhaps I mixed the two topics inappropriately in my post. If I was unclear, I apologize. I have two separate questions.
1) What are the "normal" levels of ozone that should exist over Antarctica, and how do we know that those hypothetical levels are "normal"?
2) Although I do not doubt that global climate change is going on, I am skeptical of the research done thus far to prove that it is anthropogenic. The famous "hockey stick" graph shows temperature rising in direct correlation to the advent of the automobile (hence, CO2 emissions). However, the same graph can be found in any number of samples of utterly random information with enough red noise. Further, the pioneering and supporing research on the topic has been found to cherry-pick data series to produce the intended results. In fact, the SAME GUYS who came up with the "hockey stick" graph originally found NO correlation, and kept including and excluding series until they got a correlation, and then published THAT. Among the included series were a study of a half dozen tree rings in the Southwestern United States, which were the sole representative series for a long time period. Now, if you want to tell me it's good science to extrapolate the ring widths of a half dozen trees to be representative of a world containing billions of trees of tens of thousands different species, that's your business, but I will disagree that this is good enough science on which to base global climate policy. What's more, the original samples are now mostly unavailable, much of the original data (including WHERE the trees were found and measured, and exactly WHEN and under what circumstances) is missing, lost, or out of the recollection of the scientists involved.
For my money, if we're going to subject ourselves to lifestyle changes amounting to $100 trillion dollars to limit global temperature increase over the next 300 years to 6 degrees instead of 8, I'd like more research to back up that we are unquestionably the cause. It all SOUNDS GOOD and LOOKS good, but I'm skeptical of the original research and much of the supporting research, and I question the motives of the major players involved in the project.
You don't get more government grants by coming back and saying, "There's nothing to worry about here."
I DID NOT SAY and DO NOT THINK that global warming is not happening.
I am undecided on whether or not I think it's anthropogenic in nature. The research I have read does not prove it to me; not conclusively, not convincingly, not even suggestively. The research alone doesn't prove jack shit to me, it's when it holds up and passes a serious, critical peer review that I start to trust it, and I don't get the sense that global climate change has been given its due review. Finding flaws in it is a one-wa
Re:We can't even agree on global warming (Score:4, Interesting)
There are four main radicals that break down ozone: Cl-, Br-, NO-, and OH-. Cl- is easily the most damaging - the chemical reactions involved are well understood. In the early 1970s, natural sources of Cl- were dominant (there are different source molecules - CFCs aren't made in nature). We've easily displaced them in terms of quantity, however - now, 84% of Cl ions are from CFCs.
At the same time, we've watched average antarctic ozone levels cut by a third, and minimum ozone levels cut by two thirds. Worldwide, levels were been cut by five percent in two decades, with the rate accelerating as stratospheric CFC concentrations increased.
What more do you need?
hockey stick graph
What is your obsession with some "hockey stick" graph? There have been thousands of studies, and you obsess over a single graph? The physics of global warming are apparent (CO2 *is* a greenhouse gas), its concentration has increased by 20% in the past century, we can model accurately how that much CO2 got there (the rate of influx vs. outflux), and we have ice cores [umich.edu] that show an incredible correlation between CO2 concentration (as well as methane, another greenhouse gas) and temperature over the past several hundred thousand years. This is just the start of a summary of the literature, by the way - there is a *lot* more. Again, what more do you need? There's a reason that there's a near universal scientific consensus, and it's not a "hockey stick graph".
Re:We can't even agree on global warming (Score:3, Informative)
from what?
The early 1970s. Yes, we don't have long-term historical data on its size, but the physics of it are very apparent: we've 5x'ed the amount of Cl- ions in the stratosphere from what they naturally are, so unless nature decided to vary Cl- ions *5fold* before the 1970s, we're doing tremendous damage.
It's the climate change theory that hinges on it
It distinctly *Does Not*. It is a single graph from a single study
Re:We can't even agree on global warming (Score:3, Interesting)
For the more rational crowd who accepts that global warming is ongoing, but is looking for proof that it's unnatural, the scientific consensus seems more like political correctness than actual science. Who wants more pollution? Who wants to be seen as overly critical of the global warming theory when such views have been prov
Re:We can't even agree on global warming (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We can't even agree on global warming (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect that the majority of scientists that say they believe in a God or Gods are just feeding back what they expect the left half of the IQ bell curve wants to hear so they'll go away and let them do real work.
I have yet to encounter a good argument for the existence of a god. Nary a one. If you think you have one, go ahead and try; I expect I'll eat you for lunch, and generally speaking, it'll take about one average size paragraph. Nor have I ever encountered any person, regardless of how educated and/or intelligent, who can do anything but fall back to an utterly lame and unconvincing "well, I have faith it is so" in the face of moderately informed counter questioning and observation-sharing from me. And I'm not even all that smart. I know I'm not; I have very smart people who work for me, it's quite humbling. :-)
I agree entirely with the upstream comment that any scientist who seriously claims he "believes" in God, Santa, or the Easter Bunny is going to go to the bottom of my credibility index, and right quickly. If you can't think clearly about abstracts, if you accept propositions without evidence, if you are willing to accept one unanswerable and untestable proposition as the solution and/or explanation for another unanswerable and untestable proposition, then you have demonstrated that you don't understand scientific method and that should be (is, for me) a death blow to credibility in science.
What these survey readers (and givers) need to realize is that it is not "OK" to be an atheist in this country; it is a conservative, dangerous environment within which to choose to come out for atheism and it is also time-consuming -- should a person designated as a scientist make such a claim they'll likely end up spending a lot of time defending said claim to people they really don't need to be spending time with. Now, some of us -- like me -- have the time and there is no particular loss to society if I spend my time that way. Perhaps there is even a benefit; some people are just confused and will immediately understand when presented (finally) with reason over religion. But I'd hate for a scientist to spend a lot of time doing so. I'm much more interested in our learning how the world actually works than I am in hearing a scientist try to debunk the myth-makers. For these reasons, surveys that claim real, productive scientists are "religious" feel dubious to me. I'd actually be fascinated to meet one who could back up their belief system with other than the usual easily defeated lines of rubbish; but it's not happened as yet, and I'm not exactly holding my breath. I think it'd be a good use of their time, though, as it'd keep them away from the beakers, chalkboard and animal cages for a while. :-)
Re:Biggest determinant of ozone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We can't even agree on global warming (Score:3, Interesting)
If somebody says something that runs counter to when I think is true, and quotes a source, I go look it
Re:We can't even agree on global warming (Score:3, Informative)
Diffusion & convection (air currents). Why then do CFC's ignore all the yummy Ozone on the surface and then defy gravity by flying up into the stratosphere and then travel like Arctic Terns to the poles to have their Ozone Buffet?
Very simple. CFCs themselves don't do much to ozone. However, when they are broken up into radicals (for example
Re:We can't even agree on global warming (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:We can't even agree on global warming (Score:4, Informative)
I do, however, find the disappearance of the Earth's magnetic field quite troubling. Given that it's pretty important to surviving solar radiation to begin with, and is merely a symptom of something even more mysterious happening in the core, it could be quite dangerous. I guess it's not interesting to people who want to use global warming as a weapon for their pet political cause (since it's clearly unrelated to human activity) so it doesn't get any attention.
The Earth's crust more or less floats over the solid inner core, and there's no reason to assume they rotate the same speed or direction. However, if the core changes the speed or direction of it's rotation significantly (some interpretations of the magnetic field changing direction requires this), the planet as a whole will still have to conserve angular momentum, so the crust could be expected to change the speed or direction of its rotation. While the change would only be fast in geological terms, the poles don't have to move much for life to get interesting.
But, of course, we have very little data about the core, so we are left with making computer models which account for the magnetic field changes and guessing which one might have the accurate underlying assumptions.
Re:I don't know, but I have other thoughts... (Score:2, Interesting)
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050830/photos_ts_afp/0 50830071810_shxwaoma_photo1 [yahoo.com]
Yet this black guy didn't find stuff, he looted it:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050830/48 0/ladm10708301649 [yahoo.com]
Uh huh.
Re:I'd like to take a moment (Score:5, Interesting)
Why the US? You should be focusing on China and India. While the US did not sign Kyoto, it is still taking some steps on the environment (amazing considering the prevailing attitude of the party in power). China and India signed the Kyoto treaty - in which they made no committments (not sure why signing was a big deal, honestly, since they don't have to do anything).
Kyoto was intended to keep polution at 1990 levels (I would argue to reduce it from there - but just keeping it there was a start). China and India are countries of 1.3 and 1.0 billion people where pollution is skyrocketing, and no one is talking about it. The pollution in some cities in China and its health effects are astouding - nothing in the modern US or Western Europe compares. Why can't we agree that ALL countries need to go back to 1990 levels - and then work to reduce from there.
The big unspoken reason the US rejected Kyoto was it put US manufactures at a disadvantage versus ones in China (and India, but less of a consideration), because of different environmental requirements. You must have a level playing field to compete, and the US rejected Kyoto's attempt to create a system that favoured China.
If you look at the trends out to 2050 and 2100, the US is NOT the problem - it's China and India.
Goddamn Chinese (Score:3, Insightful)
> it put US manufactures at a disadvantage versus
> ones in China (and India, but less of a
> consideration), because of different environmental
> requirements. You must have a level playing field
> to compete, and the US rejected Kyoto's attempt to
> create a system that favoured China.
Hm.
The Chinese emit 2.3 Tons of CO2 per capita per year
Americans emit 20.1 Tons of CO2 per capita per year.
Clearly any idiot can see that the Chinese are the
Re:I'd like to take a moment (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I'd like to take a moment (Score:2)
Re:CFC is too heavy (Score:4, Insightful)
Just out of curiosity, has anyone bothered to compare the atomic weight of CFC's to say, general atmoshpere of comparitive volume (espcially of the higher O3 areas?). Seems to me it would be mighty diffucult for the CFC's to traverse up that high due to their weight.
The atmosphere is turbulently mixed up to 80 km. This is fortunate, because otherwise the nitrogen would sink below the oxygen and we couldn't breathe.
see this lecture [millersville.edu] for example. The relevant part is at the end.
Oh, wait a sec! They also only collect AT THE SOUTH POLE. Must like it cold or something.
No, the atmosphere is well-mixed, remember? They only catalyze ozone breakdowns at extremely cold temperatures.
One ought to do some research on the effects of CFC with Ozone (O3).
yes, perhaps one could win a Nobel Prize [nobelprize.org] or something.
[usual paranoid rants about DuPont elided. Let's stipulate that DuPont wanted to make money.]
I agree with an above post. Dissenting voices cause society to label one as a "nutcase" or "extremist" Isn't science all about finding logical explanations to the world around us? I say, follow the money trail, and you'll find who concocted the stories of global warming, global cooling, ozone holes.
Err, yes, I agree. Follow the money is right. I think it might be the case that the tiny little energy corporations are trembling under the onslaught of misinformation from the hugely financed scientific professional organizations and NGOs. But it might be the other way around.
Re:Why is it? (Score:3, Informative)