Ozone Layer Improving Faster Than Expected 325
SpaceAdmiral writes "Since the implementation of the Montreal Protocol, which limited ozone-destroying gasses like CFCs, the Earth's ozone layer has been recovering. However, new studies show that the ozone in the lower stratosphere is actually recovering faster than the Montreal Protocol alone can explain." From the article: "It's a complicated question. CFCs are not the only things that can influence the ozone layer; sunspots, volcanoes and weather also play a role. Ultraviolet rays from sunspots boost the ozone layer, while sulfurous gases emitted by some volcanoes can weaken it. Cold air in the stratosphere can either weaken or boost the ozone layer, depending on altitude and latitude. These processes and others are laid out in a review just published in the May 4th issue of Nature: 'The search for signs of recovery of the ozone layer' by Elizabeth Westhead and Signe Andersen."
The Green Brigade will be foaming at the mouth (Score:4, Interesting)
People who trot out wildly extrapolated results from global warming simulations ("OMG NY will under water by 2100!") sound to me like the same people who predicted city-sized computers back in the 50s because there was no way their simulations could have predicted microelectronics.
Climate is a complex system with many variables, human output being only one of them. Frankly, I've always held the greens would have a much better case if they focused on quality-of-life improvements brought about by cleaner air than by trying to create artificial energy regulations in the name of global warming (which *is* happening, but it doesn't necessarily follow that humans are the sole factor).
But hey, there's a reason green and left politics go together-- sticking it to big industry is a good way of sticking it to the Man.
Re:science wrong so science wins (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Unexplained phenomena (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sorry, I must have got something wrong...
How exactly does this differ from our current situation?
Smog excluded, this is what every room with a smoker present looks like to me.
Re:Unexplained phenomenons (Score:2, Interesting)
However, nearly all fish and shellfish contain traces of mercury. For most people, the risk from mercury by eating fish and shellfish is not a health concern. Yet, some fish and shellfish contain higher levels of mercury that may harm an unborn baby or young child's developing nervous system. The risks from mercury in fish and shellfish depend on the amount of fish and shellfish eaten and the levels of mercury in the fish and shellfish. Therefore, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are advising women who may become pregnant, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and young children to avoid some types of fish and eat fish and shellfish that are lower in mercury.
(source) [fda.gov]
Re:Unexplained phenomenons (Score:1, Interesting)
This is called trial and error. It is a driving force behind micro-evolution and macroscopic-evolutionary systems such as business, society, politics, etc...
Often times, even very smart human beings must behave in counter-productive error in order to achieve a new understanding of progress.
So yes, as a whole, we, the people of Earth are doing some very stupid and all around ignorant things. We are currently in the infancy of finally appreciating the error and gravity of many contemporary ways.
In time, we will look back upon this age and say, "How foolish we were playing with all those chemicals, disregarding nature, and not to mention: How did humans survive past twenty ingesting all of the toxic chemical-laden so called processed foods? And what was up with all those automobiles burning all that fossil fuel over all that time? My god, it actually rained acid back then!"
It is through these trials with their capacity for error that we learn what to do and what not to do.
When I was three, I put my hand on an electric stove the moment it reverted from red to black in order to see if it was immediately cool at that point. Well, it wasn't. A trip to the hospital and weeks with a hand wrapped in gauze later, I had learned something new and beneficial, and I learned through ignorance and error.
This is just how the game is played, that's all.
William
Re:Doesn't ANYBODY remember the 80s? (Score:3, Interesting)
Must be the better methods of detecting skin cancer and the wider access to medical services over time. If more people are being examined, more conditions will be found.
Re:This brought to you by... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:science wrong so science wins (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words, it's not so simple.
More important than money (Score:3, Interesting)
Science gets a special place in making those decisions. If it says, "The sky is going to fall if you don't do this, no matter what it costs", they (we, actually; I'm a scientist) merit special attention. People stopped using CFCs on scientists' say-so, for an ozone hole most people never noticed.
That means that they have to be right. Scientists get that pass because they're so often right. When they're wrong, especially on big stuff, it chips away at that special voice scientists have.
You're right that there are things more important than money. But we have to agree on what those are; no individual gets to say, "The ozone hole is the most important thing in the world and you have to spend your money to fix it!" The same applies to any other issue: global warming, fisheries management, logging, etc.
You may spend your money any way you like, but when you start reaching into somebody else's pocket to solve problems you'd better be damn sure you're right.
Re:Unexplained phenomenons (Score:4, Interesting)
Most of the arguments I've heard against GM are based on the idea that it's just a creepy and icky thing to think about. Personally, I also think that eating bugs is creepy and icky to think about, but people do that all over the world.