If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(UPI)   Antarctic ozone hole getting smaller, Leon getting larger   (upi.com) divider line 49
    More: Cool, ozone holes, time series, chlorofluorocarbons, weather satellites, ozone layer, international agreement, release form, climate variability  
•       •       •

1651 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Feb 2013 at 6:28 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



49 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-09 12:04:28 PM
Interesting, I remember a few years back when the argument was that the CFCs would continue damaging the ozone for 50-100 years because they didn't break down easily. I think the prediction was that the hole would triple in size (around 2025) before we would see any reduction. I guess someone misplaced a decimal point in those calculations.
 
2013-02-09 12:21:47 PM
I believe it. I was in SOUTH southern chile in the mid-90s. Some sheepherders were complaining that half their flock were blind. The rays would come through the ozone hole, hit the Antarctic ice sheets, the reflect off the clouds, I guess.

I have dark brown hair. I two months of summer in Coyhaique, Chile, I had blonde eyebrows and it looked like I'd had my hair did. It was very good for my hair, but I'm freckled, so it just turned me red as hell. The summer sun was HARSH if your lived in Australia, South Africa, or South America in the 90s. We also weren't allowed to wear sunglasses back then because people thought we were American CIA. Weird.
 
2013-02-09 04:01:20 PM

Dufus: Interesting, I remember a few years back when the argument was that the CFCs would continue damaging the ozone for 50-100 years because they didn't break down easily. I think the prediction was that the hole would triple in size (around 2025) before we would see any reduction. I guess someone misplaced a decimal point in those calculations.


I also read some interesting conspiracy theories that the ozone whole was caused by the shuttle dumping fuel soon after launch.
Strange that the whole shrinks when the shuttle stopped launching.

LOL
http://www.theozonehole.com/rocket.htm

no, I dont believe any of this.
BUT
why are the predictions wrong? why is the hole shrinking 50 years sooner?
 
2013-02-09 04:24:56 PM

namatad: Dufus: Interesting, I remember a few years back when the argument was that the CFCs would continue damaging the ozone for 50-100 years because they didn't break down easily. I think the prediction was that the hole would triple in size (around 2025) before we would see any reduction. I guess someone misplaced a decimal point in those calculations.

I also read some interesting conspiracy theories that the ozone whole was caused by the shuttle dumping fuel soon after launch.
Strange that the whole shrinks when the shuttle stopped launching.

LOL
http://www.theozonehole.com/rocket.htm

no, I dont believe any of this.
BUT
why are the predictions wrong? why is the hole shrinking 50 years sooner?


skepticalcubefarm.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-09 07:01:55 PM
Awesome, so I don't need to feel too guilty about having screwed up the Freon reloading of my Tektronix P6015?

www.compwest.com
 
2013-02-09 07:04:29 PM

Dufus: Interesting, I remember a few years back when the argument was that the CFCs would continue damaging the ozone for 50-100 years because they didn't break down easily. I think the prediction was that the hole would triple in size (around 2025) before we would see any reduction. I guess someone misplaced a decimal point in those calculations.


Or you're wrong about what you claim to remember.
 
2013-02-09 07:08:17 PM
The most interesting part of that article, is that the hole looks kinda big in 2001, and in 2003, but appears almost closed in 2002.  Then it goes on as normal for the most part until looking better again in 2012.  In fact, 2002 and 2012 look very similar.  Makes one think there is a lot more behind the ozone layer than just CFCs and human intervention.
 
2013-02-09 07:08:47 PM

namatad: Dufus: Interesting, I remember a few years back when the argument was that the CFCs would continue damaging the ozone for 50-100 years because they didn't break down easily. I think the prediction was that the hole would triple in size (around 2025) before we would see any reduction. I guess someone misplaced a decimal point in those calculations.

I also read some interesting conspiracy theories that the ozone whole was caused by the shuttle dumping fuel soon after launch.
Strange that the whole shrinks when the shuttle stopped launching.

LOL
http://www.theozonehole.com/rocket.htm

no, I dont believe any of this.
BUT
why are the predictions wrong? why is the hole shrinking 50 years sooner?


No more Aqua Net hairstyles.
 
2013-02-09 07:16:04 PM

recoil47: The most interesting part of that article, is that the hole looks kinda big in 2001, and in 2003, but appears almost closed in 2002.  Then it goes on as normal for the most part until looking better again in 2012.  In fact, 2002 and 2012 look very similar.  Makes one think there is a lot more behind the ozone layer than just CFCs and human intervention.


But it got women to stop using Aqua net so there is that.
 
2013-02-09 07:29:58 PM

namatad: Dufus: Interesting, I remember a few years back when the argument was that the CFCs would continue damaging the ozone for 50-100 years because they didn't break down easily. I think the prediction was that the hole would triple in size (around 2025) before we would see any reduction. I guess someone misplaced a decimal point in those calculations.

I also read some interesting conspiracy theories that the ozone whole was caused by the shuttle dumping fuel soon after launch.
Strange that the whole shrinks when the shuttle stopped launching.

LOL
http://www.theozonehole.com/rocket.htm

no, I dont believe any of this.
BUT
why are the predictions wrong? why is the hole shrinking 50 years sooner?


This just in: Models are not completely accurate.

Besides, this is good news. Hopefully the rest of the climate can turn around if we did as much to correct the Ozone layer as we did.
 
2013-02-09 07:40:02 PM
Of course it is!
 
2013-02-09 07:50:51 PM
It's almost like the ozone layer hole happens naturally and grows larger or smaller depending on various conditions.

Terribly sorry that issue didn't work out for the fake environmental movement the way you wanted, but you learned your lesson and are trying extra special hard with "climate change".
 
2013-02-09 07:51:41 PM
Funny, because there was an article in Smithsonian recently that says just the opposite... read all the way through page 3 and check out the images. Mind you I'm no expert, but it certainly is an odd contradiction to show up.
 
2013-02-09 07:56:32 PM

randomjsa: It's almost like I'm a dumbass Troll who thread-shiats once and never returns.

 
2013-02-09 08:04:25 PM

randomjsa: It's almost like the ozone layer hole happens naturally and grows larger or smaller depending on various conditions.

Terribly sorry that issue didn't work out for the fake environmental movement the way you wanted, but you learned your lesson and are trying extra special hard with "climate change".


So lets not anything because it MIGHT not be related? Got it!
 
2013-02-09 08:07:48 PM
Thanks Obama
 
2013-02-09 08:19:17 PM
The images don't show a trend at all. It looks like it just cycles over time.
 
2013-02-09 08:30:44 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Dufus: Interesting, I remember a few years back when the argument was that the CFCs would continue damaging the ozone for 50-100 years because they didn't break down easily. I think the prediction was that the hole would triple in size (around 2025) before we would see any reduction. I guess someone misplaced a decimal point in those calculations.

Or you're wrong about what you claim to remember.


Well National Geographic has this as part of a report on ozone depletion, "About 90 percent of CFCs currently in the atmosphere were emitted by industrialized countries in the Northern Hemisphere, including the United States and Europe. These countries banned CFCs by 1996, and the amount of chlorine in the atmosphere is falling now. But scientists estimate it will take another 50 years for chlorine levels to return to their natural levels. "

Then again, you can go back to the original theory, The Rowland and Molina theory says that CFCs are so inert that there are no sinks (nothing to capture or destroy them) in the troposphere (the portion of the atmosphere below the stratosphere. Therefore, CFCs have very long lifetimes in the atmosphere.According to the theory, the most common CFCs, CFC-11 and CFC-12, both very long lived, remain in the atmosphere about 50 and 120 years, respectively. After 5 years of cruising in the troposphere, the CFCs are transported into the troposphere. There, the ultraviolet rays break them up into "free" chlorine atoms (those that can combine with other elements) and other molecules. This chlorine atom then supposedly breaks down ozone molecules. The theory claims that this is a catalytic reaction, thus one single hyperactive chlorine atom may destroy hundred of thousands of ozone molecules. This reaction only stops when the chlorine atoms bind with other atoms or molecules known as "reservoir compounds".

And the US EPA report U.S. production of ozone-depleting gases has declined significantly since 1988, and has now reached levels (measured by their ozone depletion potential) comparable to those of 30 years ago. Because of the international agreements to decrease production and ultimately to phase out production of CFCs and halons, total equivalent chlorine (total chlorine and bromine, with adjustments to account for bromine's higher ozone depletion potential) in the troposphere peaked between 1992 and 1994 and has since decreased. Total chlorine abundance in the stratosphere is at or near peak; stratospheric bromine is likely still increasing. Increasing ozone losses are predicted for the remainder of the decade, with gradual recovery by the mid-21st century.

You are correct that my memory is a bit unreliable after 53 years, but I was a chemistry major in college when the ozone theories were being developed. We had a great guest lecturer program and got to hear first hand several cutting edge lectures, Some turned out to have faults and had to be refined over the years. Some were abandoned altogether.such as the idea to place large Mylar sheets into polar obit to focus large amounts of sunlight on the ice caps to melt them and prevent the coming ice age. (No, it wasn't just an article in Time magazine).

The "Gama Knife" used in cancer treatments was developed during those years and two of the inventors visited us and gave a riveting presentation on how they thought of the idea and how they had to use substitutes for human tissue during development such as using cork instead lung tissue. Just because the numbers on the length of time for ozone depleting compounds need refining to fit current observations doesn't mean I didn't believe them. The original predictions were just a bit too pessimistic.
 
2013-02-09 08:33:23 PM

Dufus: I remember a few years back when the argument was that the CFCs would continue damaging the ozone for 50-100 years because they didn't break down easily


I remember a few years back when the Macondo oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was projected to reach England because the oil didn't break down easily.

2.bp.blogspot.com

Live and learn.
 
2013-02-09 08:35:51 PM
Good. We can start selling hairspray again. I was getting worried.
 
2013-02-09 08:37:24 PM

Erom: The images don't show a trend at all. It looks like it just cycles over time.


It's not really easy to see trends in spatial snapshots.  Below is a figure showing the averages year-by-year (for the worst months of they ear), bottom panel, until 2010.  There doesn't look like much of a trend, except maybe a bit recently, but it's not cycles either.


www.nature.com
 
2013-02-09 08:56:49 PM

randomjsa: Terribly sorry that issue didn't work out for the fake environmental movement the way you wanted, but you learned your lesson and are trying extra special hard with "climate change".


I still need it explained to me what the goal is of 97% of the scientific community getting together and just making up this global warming thing. And please don't say grant money.
 
2013-02-09 08:57:23 PM

fisker: Good. We can start selling hairspray again. I was getting worried.


Sure, now that I'm bald.
 
2013-02-09 09:12:57 PM
Why it got smaller... ?


cdn02.cdn.thesuperficial.com
 
2013-02-09 09:17:53 PM
One more click, and there's the answer:

Warmer temperatures in the Antarctic lower stratosphere helped to keep the hole smaller this year, NASA said.

"The ozone hole mainly is caused by chlorine from human-produced chemicals, and these chlorine levels are still sizable in the Antarctic stratosphere," said Paul Newman, an atmospheric scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "Natural fluctuations in weather patterns resulted in warmer stratospheric temperatures this year. These temperatures led to a smaller ozone hole."

NASA and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration have been monitoring the ozone layer from the ground and with a variety of instruments on satellites and balloons since the 1970s.

The Antarctic ozone layer likely will not return to its early pre-1980s state until about 2065, Newman said, because of the long lifetimes of ozone-depleting substances still in the atmosphere.


Antarctic ozone hole smallest in 20 years
 
2013-02-09 09:19:46 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: I believe it. I was in SOUTH southern chile in the mid-90s. Some sheepherders were complaining that half their flock were blind. The rays would come through the ozone hole, hit the Antarctic ice sheets, the reflect off the clouds, I guess.

I have dark brown hair. I two months of summer in Coyhaique, Chile, I had blonde eyebrows and it looked like I'd had my hair did. It was very good for my hair, but I'm freckled, so it just turned me red as hell. The summer sun was HARSH if your lived in Australia, South Africa, or South America in the 90s. We also weren't allowed to wear sunglasses back then because people thought we were American CIA. Weird.


Your story answers a lot of questions. 
img221.imageshack.us
 
2013-02-09 09:21:07 PM

Dufus: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Dufus: Interesting, I remember a few years back when the argument was that the CFCs would continue damaging the ozone for 50-100 years because they didn't break down easily. I think the prediction was that the hole would triple in size (around 2025) before we would see any reduction. I guess someone misplaced a decimal point in those calculations.

Or you're wrong about what you claim to remember.

Well National Geographic has this as part of a report on ozone depletion, "About 90 percent of CFCs currently in the atmosphere were emitted by industrialized countries in the Northern Hemisphere, including the United States and Europe. These countries banned CFCs by 1996, and the amount of chlorine in the atmosphere is falling now. But scientists estimate it will take another 50 years for chlorine levels to return to their natural levels. "

Then again, you can go back to the original theory, The Rowland and Molina theory says that CFCs are so inert that there are no sinks (nothing to capture or destroy them) in the troposphere (the portion of the atmosphere below the stratosphere. Therefore, CFCs have very long lifetimes in the atmosphere.According to the theory, the most common CFCs, CFC-11 and CFC-12, both very long lived, remain in the atmosphere about 50 and 120 years, respectively. After 5 years of cruising in the troposphere, the CFCs are transported into the troposphere. There, the ultraviolet rays break them up into "free" chlorine atoms (those that can combine with other elements) and other molecules. This chlorine atom then supposedly breaks down ozone molecules. The theory claims that this is a catalytic reaction, thus one single hyperactive chlorine atom may destroy hundred of thousands of ozone molecules. This reaction only stops when the chlorine atoms bind with other atoms or molecules known as "reservoir compounds".

And the US EPA report U.S. production of ozone-depleting gases has declined significantly since 1988, and has now reached ...


The largest ozone hole ever recorded was in 2006.  It's cyclical, so it could still take a few more decades to close completely.
 
2013-02-09 09:57:12 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com
/oblig?
 
2013-02-09 09:58:31 PM
I expect WSJ to run an "editorial" claiming that the global economy has been depressed for 17 years by the CFC ban.
 
2013-02-09 09:59:22 PM

namatad: Dufus: Interesting, I remember a few years back when the argument was that the CFCs would continue damaging the ozone for 50-100 years because they didn't break down easily. I think the prediction was that the hole would triple in size (around 2025) before we would see any reduction. I guess someone misplaced a decimal point in those calculations.

I also read some interesting conspiracy theories that the ozone whole was caused by the shuttle dumping fuel soon after launch.
Strange that the whole shrinks when the shuttle stopped launching.

LOL
http://www.theozonehole.com/rocket.htm

no, I dont believe any of this.
BUT
why are the predictions wrong? why is the hole shrinking 50 years sooner?



You want full unadulterated tin foil derpage? Look no further than this clown: Vic Livingston He takes it to new heights and thinks Lockheed Martin has a serious hard on for him. It's entertaining reading if nothing else.
 
2013-02-09 10:49:12 PM
i759.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-09 11:30:21 PM
Seems like some people in here confuse "It will take X decades for the ozone hole to repair" with "nothing should happen at all with the ozone hole for X decades and them BAM! it'll be fixed all at once".  I'm having a hard time believing that this kind of confusion is sincere.
 
2013-02-10 12:10:43 AM
I was under the impression that only could change these things.
 
2013-02-10 12:58:40 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x567]
/oblig?


I don't think the UN putting a new tax on every person, service and product would truly create a better world. It's ridiculous, really. All the UN discussions amounted to pretty much this:

Speaker: "Hey guys, let's save the environment!"

Audience: "Sure!"

Speaker "Simply give me your money. Especially you poor countries which can't afford cleaner power"

Audience "No"
 
2013-02-10 01:24:31 AM
Clearly this can only be the good work of global warming.
 
2013-02-10 01:33:12 AM

J. Frank Parnell: HindiDiscoMonster: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x567]
/oblig?

I don't think the UN putting a new tax on every person, service and product would truly create a better world. It's ridiculous, really. All the UN discussions amounted to pretty much this:

Speaker: "Hey guys, let's save the environment!"

Audience: "Sure!"

Speaker "Simply give me your money. Especially you poor countries which can't afford cleaner power"

Audience "No"


1.) UN can't tax anybody, and 2.) That is clearly the only solution that we have, right?
 
2013-02-10 01:50:09 AM

LoneWolf343: 1.) UN can't tax anybody, and 2.) That is clearly the only solution that we have, right?


1) They tried.

2) That's what they were primarily focused on, yes. With the same flawed logic that police fining people for everything would make people stop doing those things. Well, people kept doing those things, but hey, new income stream. Vague claims of what was going to be done with the money was always secondary, and questionable at best.

I'm all about the environment, and would have supported any plan that didn't smell so much like a con. And what if everyone had rushed to adopt a carbon tax? They'd now be claiming they are to thank for saving everyone from the ozone hole and global warming, and in order to continue on this course they need more money.
 
2013-02-10 02:01:08 AM

J. Frank Parnell: LoneWolf343: 1.) UN can't tax anybody, and 2.) That is clearly the only solution that we have, right?

1) They tried.

2) That's what they were primarily focused on, yes. With the same flawed logic that police fining people for everything would make people stop doing those things. Well, people kept doing those things, but hey, new income stream. Vague claims of what was going to be done with the money was always secondary, and questionable at best.

I'm all about the environment, and would have supported any plan that didn't smell so much like a con. And what if everyone had rushed to adopt a carbon tax? They'd now be claiming they are to thank for saving everyone from the ozone hole and global warming, and in order to continue on this course they need more money.


From your article: "The U.N. does not currently have the authority to tax..."
 
2013-02-10 02:09:54 AM

LoneWolf343: From your article: "The U.N. does not currently have the authority to tax..."


But the entire article is about them wanting to for carbon taxes. That was the carbon tax plan when it went global.
 
2013-02-10 02:24:24 AM

J. Frank Parnell: LoneWolf343: From your article: "The U.N. does not currently have the authority to tax..."

But the entire article is about them wanting to for carbon taxes. That was the carbon tax plan when it went global.


Of course they want to. They want to do many things which they can't do, which is why no one takes them seriously.
 
2013-02-10 06:25:55 AM
It won't actually go away.  It can't.
Ozone and South repel each other.
 
2013-02-10 07:34:59 AM
New from Pizza Hut! Hot Pocket Ozone!
 
2013-02-10 08:32:36 AM

J. Frank Parnell: LoneWolf343: 1.) UN can't tax anybody, and 2.) That is clearly the only solution that we have, right?

1) They tried.


You are confused.  When taxes are discussed at UN meetings (or the equivalent cap-and-trade proposals), they're not taxes to be levied by the UN.  They're levied by individual national governments.  The UN doesn't get the money.  Furthermore, under most national-level proposals, governments don't keep the money either.  Most or all of it gets returned to the public (in the form of tax credits, dividends, or whatever).  Under some proposals, some of it is used for renewable subsidies, and some of it goes into an adaptation fund for developing countries.

With respect to your linked article, MRV activities by the UN for the Green Fund are not taxation by the UN.  They're emissions monitoring, reporting, and verification.  That is, countries may impose a tax on emissions, but the UN checks to see whether the emissions they're taxing are what they say they are.  Also, the UN may or may not be in charge of distributing the Green Fund money raised by individual countries; it was yet to be determined whether they, the World Bank, or individual countries would be in charge of that.  (In practice it probably wouldn't matter much, as the disbursement of those funds would be governed by international treaty regardless.)
 
2013-02-10 10:11:44 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: /oblig?


Not that I deny climate change science, but that cartoon and the message it sends is bullshiat.

It essentially is arguing that even if global warming alarms are false, we're better off doing all the "fixes" as if they were true.

It omits all the costs of these fixes. There should be a line item on that board for, I dunno, dramatically increased unemployment and a diminished economy, higher taxes, higher debt, etc. whether or not we should pursue whatever the goals are of environmental activists, those goals aren't free.
 
2013-02-10 11:32:19 AM

Lsherm: The largest ozone hole ever recorded was in 2006. It's cyclical, so it could still take a few more decades to close completely.


For all we know, it may never close completely. The observations only go back a relatively short period of time. Use of CFCs and such may have increased what is a natural occurrence. Hopefully, the reduction in size is an indication that it is returning to its normal cycle - whatever that may be and that the compounds that contribute to increasing the size break down faster than projected. It's good to learn that you were wrong sometimes..
 
2013-02-10 12:16:19 PM
The hilarious thing is that none of these deniers would question the consensus of the scientific community if they weren't afraid of it hitting them in the pocketbook or if they weren't simply trying to be good republicans.
 
2013-02-10 02:29:59 PM
I don't know why they cannot predict the size of the hole more accurately if the CFC theory is valid. The FC's can be measured by satellite if I'm not mistaken so I'm not sure what the problem is. For a number of reasons I believe that impact of CFC's will be shown to be minimal in the coming years , we'll see.
 
2013-02-10 04:55:39 PM

digitaldesperado: I don't know why they cannot predict the size of the hole more accurately if the CFC theory is valid. The FC's can be measured by satellite if I'm not mistaken so I'm not sure what the problem is.


Year-to-year variability has to do with weather/climatic fluctuations in Antarctic stratospheric temperatures, which modulate the effect of CFCs.

For a number of reasons I believe that impact of CFC's will be shown to be minimal in the coming years , we'll see.

You think that the ozone hole isn't due to CFCs?  That's comical.
 
2013-02-10 08:46:21 PM
I don't think we have had much solar activity even with the Solar Maximum cycle.

Back when the ozone hole was the biggest I remember we also had some solar activity that caused the Aurora Borealis to be so huge as to be seen at latitudes near San Jose. I could also smell what I thought was ozone. I remember the smell from doing welding years before. Someone told me then the smell was ozone.

Anyway I think the ozone hole size may change more do to solar activity than some of the other theories out there.
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report