File :-(, x, )
Study shows massive ozone loss in Antarctic Anonymous
A study released this week shows just how dramatic the ozone loss in the Antarctic has been over the past 20 years compared to the same phenomenon in the Arctic.

The study found "massive" and "widespread" localised ozone depletion in the heart of Antarctica's ozone hole region, beginning in the late 1970s, but becoming more pronounced in the 1980s and 90s.

The US government scientists who conducted the study said that there was an almost complete absence of ozone in certain atmospheric air samples taken after 1980, compared to earlier decades.

In contrast, the ozone losses in the Arctic were sporadic. The researchers said even the greatest losses there did not begin to approach the regular losses in the rest of the northern hemisphere.

"Typically, the Arctic loss is dramatically less than the Antarctic loss," said Robert Portmann, an atmospheric scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colorado.

Scientists have been tracking the expanding ozone hole over Antarctica for some 20 years now.

In October, NASA scientists reported that this year's hole was the biggest ever, stretching over almost 28.5 million square kilometres.

In Antarctica, local ozone depletion at some altitudes frequently exceeded 90 per cent, and often reached up to 99 per cent during the Antarctic winter in the period after 1980 compared to earlier decades, the researchers said.
Comment too long. Clickhereto view the full text.
>> Anonymous
We had no snow for this christmas.

That hasn´t happened in decades.

It has been the warmest winter since god knows when.

News reader said it´s going to be like this for now on...
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Don't worry! As predicted in Futurama, nuclear winter will cancel it out!
>> Anonymous
>>54972
thank god
>> Anonymous
Now I have been wondering about this for somet time but have now choosen to say it here. In europe (where it currenyly is winter) the lowest temprature we have had is 1 degree celcius, while tasmania (where it is high summer) they have a snow storm where it was supposed to be a hot bathing season, so, has the weather gone totally mad? anyways, I blame all the polution
>> Anonymous
>>54986
I´ve noticed that too. We used to have snow coming in siberia style. That has totally changed in about ten or so years. Now we barely have snow for the most of the winter time.
>> Anonymous
Did everyone completely forget about the ice age? And then conversly forget about the completely tropical planet we had during the age of the dinosaurs? Weather is as much a cycle as everything else in nature. Freaking out cause the weather is changing is silly. Aside from that, cold = shit.
>> Anonymous
What the fuck, I thought the ozone thing was getting better, though would take decades.

Anyway sure you can't look at any piece of weather and infer disaster from it, but read or talk to real scientists (not political blogs, not hippie blogs, not some asshole on the radio) reputable in the field, and you'll understand better about why it may be worth giving a shit or two. Just because worst case disaster happening really really soon isn't particularly likely doesn't mean we should take scepticism to a retarded moon hoax degree.
>> Anonymous
Ozone is a renewable resource. That little layer in the atmosphere comes and goes over a period of a few years.
>> Anonymous
yeah well, oil is also a renewable resource - but do you have a few thousand years to hang around for it?

OK, it's not ABSOLUTELY certain that if you drive your car into a telegrpah pole at 100Kph, you'll die. But it is a definate possiblity.

Same thing with us fucking up our planet - why do we change our behaviour for one possibility, but not the other??

People are so stupid & inconsistent sometimes.
>> l33k !OK8FhyWNXk
>>55065
Anonymous, meet lowest common detominator.
>> Anonymous
Global warming is a tool for people all across the political scale. It is made of exaggeration, misinformation, bullshit and lies.
>> Anonymous
>>55081

I think I saw a statistic some time ago which said that over 95% of all scientists think that the global warming is a real (and bad) thing, caused by the CO2 emissions. On the other hand, about 50% or so of the (American) media coverage said that it is a real thing and caused by the CO2 emissions.

Btw, if you haven't noticed, the rest of the world isn't that sceptical about the global warming. Well, it is just natural that the biggest producer of CO2 says that CO2 has no effects on climate.
>> Anonymous
Statistics are made of bullshit and lies too.
>> Anonymous
>>55086
Denial of proven facts is ignorant and stupid too.
>> Anonymous
I watched a documentary about the six top possibilities for the end of the world. After gamma ray bursts and asteroid impacts I was expecting #1 to be FUCKING AWESOME...but it was just global warming. Screw that - I want my planet to die in a spectacular blaze of glory.
>> Anonymous
>>55089

You'll find that global warming isn't actually proven.
>> Anonymous
>>55116

Well it's not like Global Warming will bring about the destruction of the planet, the destruction of the human race quite possibly. But give the Earth a 100 million years and new stuff will evolve to take our place.
>> Anonymous
>>55118
You'll find that you are WRONG.
>> Anonymous
>>55120
The global warming theory is alarmist and premature. It's not as if this is the first time climate change has happened. There was a medieval period of warming, followed by a "little ice age", again followed by warming before the Victorian era. William the Conquerer didn't have a hummer, neither did he recycle.

Correlation =/= Causation.
>> Anonymous
>>55121

This argument tacitly assumes that the Earth’s climate system has a “normal” state that it pushes back to after unusually warm or cold periods, like a stretched spring returning to its normal length. While this might appear commonsensical, it has no foundation in either the record of how climate has varied or the fundamental physics of the atmosphere. The Earth’s climate has no “normal” state to which the climate seeks to return, so there is no reason to expect that an unusually cool period will be followed naturally by a return to warmer conditions.
>> Anonymous
Here's a nifty little site that debunks almost every argument a global warming denier might raise.

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html
>> Anonymous
Pascal's Wager, people. It doesn't matter if it's real or not; if we do something and it turns out global warming exists we're fine. If not, no big loss. If we don't do something and it turns out global warming exists we're fucked. If not, no big loss.
>> Anonymous
>>55121
Over 90% of experts of this subject disagree with you. Do some research and you´ll find out why.
>> Anonymous
>>55129
Stop pulling numbers out of your ass.
>> Anonymous
>>55139
Earth has seen climate changes because the ammount of energy received from the sun has varied.
This depends on the earth's distance to the sun and can mathematically be predicted.
We can't change this.
What we see now is a man-made problem and we can very well do something about it by reducing co2 output.
Anyone denying global warming is welcome to visit the north sea and wonder why there's suddenly fish and other animals spreading there that should live some thousand km southwards.
>> Anonymous
>>55140
I'm not questioning the effect, I'm questioning the cause.
>> Anonymous
>>55139
I recall that the exact amouth was 93% or 94% in the most recent studies. If you still doupt it, you will find more information and various sources on the subject in wikipedia article called "global warming". Seriously this stuff is common knowledge.
>> Anonymous
>>55141

Well, if you´re questioning it, then how about providing some widely scientifically approved information to back up your claims.


Btw. How do you explain the vast majority of global scientific community disagreeing with you? Could it be that majority of experts in this very topic knows this stuff little better than you?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
1. Attach rockets to Earth
2. Move Earth away from Sun a bit
3. ???
4. Profit!
>> Anonymous
wouldn't the rockets give off heat?
>> Anonymous
>>55121
Wasn't that shown to be bullshit that PR company-hired deniers use, the same PR company that denied smoking caused cancer?
>> Anonymous
>>55228

Dunno about that, but indeed many GW deniers sound like tobacco companies. Or creationists.
>> Anonymous
Scientist are in agreement that the earth is growing warmer over the years, Scientists are in no way of one mind over what the cause is
>> Anonymous
>>55065

No, actually, the ozone layer isn't that big of a deal. It really has nothing to do with global warming, by the way -- all it does is keep people from getting cancer. By the way, all of you fags who brought up global warming are a bunch of idiots. Global warming is an entirely different and more serious matter than the stupid fucking ozone layer.
>> Anonymous
>>55649

Actually they ARE rather unanimous. You're going to have hard time trying to find a peer reviewed article which suggest something other than CO2 pollution as a main cause.
>> Anonymous
>>55654
Current state of ozone layer has everything to do with gobal warming and greenhouse effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone

Seriously how do you come up with these claims?
>> Anonymous
>>55661
Did you even READ those articles you posted?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Consequences_of_ozone_depletion

Ozone doesn't do anything except block UV rays. Those have a negligible effect on global warming. Seriously, you don't even have an excuse this time. You aren't just confused, you need to go back to 5th grade and learn to read.
>> Anonymous
>>55663
Ozone depletion is related with global warming. However, it is true ozone depletion has only a minor role in greenhouse warming though the two processes often are confused in the popular media.
>> Anonymous
>>Denial of proven facts is ignorant and stupid too.
You know what's REALLY ignorant? Using the word "proven" in a discussion about global warming.

>>so there is no reason to expect that an unusually cool period will be followed naturally by a return to warmer conditions.
Except for the fact that its happened many, many times in the past, and we know of dozens of processes that encourage atmospheric cyclicity?

>>Scientist are in agreement that the earth is growing warmer over the years, Scientists are in no way of one mind over what the cause is
Indeed.

>>Actually they ARE rather unanimous. You're going to have hard time trying to find a peer reviewed article which suggest something other than CO2 pollution as a main cause.
Of course its an important cause, nobody's denying this. What we're (well, I'm a grad student, but I still contribute) discovering more and more, though, is that human CO2 emissions aren't half as important as a lot of alarmists are claiming. Certainly its important, but it shared the spotlight with a great deal of other factors. Al Gore and the rest of you guys would love for this to be so simple, but unfortunately it isn't.
>> Anonymous
>>55730

The amount of C02 and temp jumps up an amount that is way beyond any level ever seen in the history of the earth. This starts happening just around the time humans start burning coal, driving cars, etc. I'm asking you to connect two dots, it's not that difficult. An Inconvient Truth is a quality film, everyone should watch it to at least get educated on the data.
>> Anonymous
"What's the Scouter reading?"
"..."
"It's...it's OVER 9000!!!!"
>> Anonymous
Air consists of:
78% nitrogen
21% oxygen
One 300th of 1% is carbon dioxide

Kinda puts the whole thing into perspective doesn't it?
>> Anonymous
>>55887
makes me wish we breathed nitrogen =(
>> Anonymous
>>55889
Rofl
>> OrganicChemistry101
if i see one more person connect loss of ozone with global warming i may kill myself...

ozone loss is caused by a free radicle reaction between free Cl radicles (created by UV rays and chlorofluorocarbons)and 2 moles of ozone forming 3 moles of oxygen gas and the same chlorine free radicle. This is what allows more UV to enter the atmosphere as ozone deflects UV rays -- not heat.

global warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels. this free carbon dioxide acts as an insulator for the heat radiating off of the earth.
>> Anonymous
>>55889
We already do, dumbass.
>> Anonymous
>>55887
The universe consists of:
100% empty space
0% matter
Clearly there can't be a problem with the matter when there's so little of it comparatively!
>> Anonymous
>>56126
Ozone is not an organic molecule, and carbon dioxide is barely one.

>>55887
What kind of perspective are you talking about? If we went from 1/30000 to 2/30000 we'd be fucked. That's the perspective we're talking about here.
>> OrganicChemistry101
     File :-(, x)
>>56136

Are you really going to gripe about the name I posted under? Could you at least try to ignore my point and make a belligerent and moronic statement about what I said?