Arctic Winter Sees 40% Thinning of Ozone Layer
ESA/Finnish Meteorological Institute
WMO REPORT
For those asking why is this hole forming? What makes this year different?
or why do they keep mentioning the cold air and what does it have to do with the ozone?
The hole exists, because the ozone is being forced out of the area by the cold air.
Ozone O3 is a 3 piece oxygen molecule created by a reaction of sunlight and oxygen in the atmosphere. It is always being created anywhere the sun hits the air, and destroyed by the UV light.
In the antarctic the ice is so thick that a polar vortex always forms during their long night of winter ( a month or so with no sunlight at all.) during that time the cold air pushes all the warm air out and forms almost a wall of cold.
Because the Ozone is formed by sunlight it is warm when created, so is also pushed out. It's dark during the arctic winter so no Ozone is created there during that time so a hole forms.
Now normally because there is no land mass at the North pole, and very little inside the arctic circle, there is not normally enough ice mass to set up a polar vortex there, but this year it was unusually cold. A vortex formed and then so did an Ozone hole.
In both the arctic and the antarctic the ozone hole collapses once the sun rises again and heats the air enough to break the vortex.
There is a risk though for maybe a few weeks that this cold air mass before it breaks up does not have the ozone levels in it to guard against UV radiation in these very northern cities and towns and they could be at risk to skin cancer from the elevated UV. Not too likely that they will be out in shorts and a tshirt anyway though.
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/
Unusual northern winter puts ozone hole above the Arctic
<>
The hole in the ozone layer is still there; it is a natural phenomenon and as such it probably has always been there. But do you remember the countless billions we spent to comply with Montreal Protocol in order to 'Save the Planet'? Well, it seems it was all wasted. But 1000s of scientists at the time claimed that they knew the hole was due to CFCs and if we stopped producing them, then the hole would close. But it hasn't! In fact it is now bigger than ever, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
Does anyone see any parallels in this with the current Global Warming hoax? Unfortunately, these pandemics of mass hysteria take on a momentum of their own and are immune to common sense.
Even the green guru James Lovelock, originator of the famous Gaia Theory, said in a Guardian interview about supposed Global Warming,
"We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...
So, we have wasted billions destroying CFCs in another futile attempt to save the planet from what turned out to be to be an entirely natural phenomenon.
I do not doubt the basic chemical reactions which could be demonstrated in a laboratory but, as you know, ozone is being continuously replenished in the higher atmosphere. However, from my knowledge of chemistry, if CFCs are supposedly to persist for many years, then clearly they are not very reactive. They cannot react with ozone and still exist! So there appears to be something wrong here.
Eventually there comes a time when predictions, however well founded on scientific hypothesis, have to be put to the test. Unfortunately, often in these 'save the world' scenarios, the predictions are so far in the future that it takes many years to prove that they are wrong. In the case of the ozone layer, however, we have a rare opportunity to match a prediction with known result.
The prediction was that the hole in the ozone layer would 'heal' itself - result: it hasn't.
Read the article DAILY TELEGRAPH/
Ozone depletion over Arctic at record level - UN
<>
Everyone can argue all they want
"Climate change is a scam! This is happening naturally!"
"Pollution is the cause! We're all doomed in 2012!"
I'm so tired of all this.
One thing is for certain - we in the developing world are wasteful. We throw away plastic packaging, buy foods shipping from far, far away, when there are seasonal foods available to us, leave the lights on, let the water run, etc.
The only thing that will be able to help us is to become less wasteful. Even if you are a person that thinks this article and all the commenters are spewing a huge load of bollocks, it doesn't matter. If we all produced less waste, practiced shopping local and actually recycled our materials to their fullest potential, that would make a difference. It doesn't matter if this is farce or not, we can do our part to leave as small of a footprint as possible.
If we are doomed and 2012 is looming, there is no reason to be the wasteful pigs that the developed world is known to be. If the ozone is depleting because of us, then we can do our part to reverse it. If the ozone depletes because of natural causes and poisons and byproducts of these naturally occurring chemicals, it does NOT give us the excuse to be as wasteful and greedy as we as a society are.
Read the article CBC NEWS/
Ozone hole over Arctic hits record
<>
I still fail to understand why it's so important to some people to cling desperately to the sinking ship of climate change denial. Latch on to any perceived weakness and declare GW debunked and all the lefty enviro-nerds to be fools!
Why the insistence on repeating spurious arguments like "natural carbon cycles", "undersea volcanos", "we're so insignificant", and of course "climategate"? The first two are integral parts of GW theory (and evidence FOR it), and the last two are not evidence at all.
From someone who has studied the way the Earth has changed and continues to change, who now works for an oil company, and who - like you - has a vested interest in not ruining our home, take it from me:
Global warming/climate change is real, and changes in the last 50-100 years have been largely caused by humans burning coal and petroleum. We need to stop digging up fossil fuels (that carbon cycle you talk about - where do you think all the carbon was naturally sequestered over hundreds of millions of years?), and start preparing for an Earth with more intense weather (hot and cold), rising sea levels, and more deserts. Global warming will not bring rich harvests, it will cause both drought AND excessive rains.
Whether carbon taxation would actually work is for economists to argue over. But even with a stiff carbon penalty, oilsands companies would be absolutely fine.
As for "climategate", it's a non-issue. Three separate inquiries in the UK have cleared the CRU of any scientific misconduct or malpractice. Two further independent reviews (by FactCheck and the AP) found the emails did not affect evidence that man made global warming is a real threat.
If you're uninformed you're not a skeptic, you're just a contrarian. For informed skeptics, replies welcome.
Read the article CBC NEWS/
Ozone hole over Arctic hits record
The Untimely Death of Knut the Polar Bear
It is unfortunatly common for zoo mothers to reject their young, and thus not unusual for a baby animal to be raised by zookeepers.
The issue is complicated because of course a zoo is incapable of providing the life that the animal would have had in the wild, but zoo animals also become ambassadors for their species, raising awareness and gaining public support and interest in conservation. In some cases, zoos play a huge role in preserving a species.
No one likes to see an animal in a cage, that's for sure, and zoo negligence can be really horrible and heart breaking.
So I guess what we really have to ask ourselves is, is it worth it, if we can provide the animal with maybe 70-80% the quality of life it would have in the wild, to keep it in captivity for hte sake of education, awareness and preservation? Some would say no.
Also there is a huge difference between keeping say little prey species (who are probably happy to have a safe haven where food is always available) and a large preditor who requires a lot of territory and hunting stimulation. For me, seeing polar bears in a zoo has always been very tragic. They are also starving to death in the wild because of lack of territory. So there you go.
Read the article TIME/Did negligence kill Knut the polar bear?
<>
People are looking for an excuse to blame the zoo without considering that he may have had had an unidentifiable underlying condition. Why, if he died young, is it automatically the zoo's fault? If he had a brain disorder as the end of the article speculates, dropping him off in the wild wouldn't exactly have helped him. As it says, polar bears in captivity often live longer than 30 years (12-15 years longer than their life span in the wild, mind you) - there was a deeper problem here.
And those of you who are getting all moralistic over the comment "it's normal for polar bears to live with other polar bears in a zoo" (I'm looking at you, Dave) are completely missing the point of that remark. Nobody said that a zoo is a bear's natural habitat, merely that it has been common practice for bears in zoos to live with others. I suppose, because he was so cute, he should have been treated differently than all the other bears that were able to survive for decades under similar living situations?
As of right now, anybody saying that the zoo is to blame is incredibly unprepared to back up that claim. It could be true, but you simply don't have any facts. If any of you have ever lost pets I could just as easily say that you should be blamed for their deaths, simply because they were under your care at the time. Somehow that seems unfair to me.
Read the article TIME/Did negligence kill Knut the polar bear?
Precious Knut introduced me to the world of magnificent yet charismatically endearing bears. He brought so much joy into my life and the lives of countless thousands of people all over the world. We were all blessed to have his sweetness and goodness with us, even for too short a time.
Sleep now sweet angel. I will always love you and cherish your precious memory. Karen Stefanini, one of your many doting and adoring across the Atlantic aunties
Read the article LOS ANGELES TIMES/R.I.P. Knut: Remembering the famous Berlin Zoo polar bear's life in pictures
<>
To all you detractors, what's wrong with a second chance at life if your birth mother rejects you? Nothing, as I see it.
However, people (especially trained zookeepers & the powers that be) given what they believe to be true about rejected animals at birth should have known enough to not subject the poor creature to aggressive other animals even of their own species.
It would seem that with Knut's observed circumstantial stresses, closer supervision & timley preventative action would have been in order. He may very well have lived to a ripe old age instead of being repeatedly subjected to the other bears reported aggressiveness.
How very sad Knut's handler died so early...poor Knut's decline may have in part stemmed from a broken spirt of loneliness & isolation. I am truly saddened & will be anxiously awaiting further news...
Read the article THE LOCAL--GERMANY/Polar bear's death brings tears and crticism
<>
Thank you to the Berlin Zoologischer Garten for saving and giving us the years of Knut we did have. No one knows when they have a child how long they will be with us, but we are better for knowing and loving them. How can a man love something he has never known? Through Knut and his life we have come to love Polar Bears better than before. How do the animal rights folk know that we are not part of the system - that our part in nature is not to use our minds for the care of the physical universe? To attribute anthropomorphic sensibilities to blind "Nature" will lead us back to worshipping senseless rocks and trees...
Thanks again to the Berlin Zoologischer Garten: you did the right thing. I still have a picture of Knut and Giovanna so happily together...such things are simply good.
Read the article THE LOCAL--GERMANY/Polar bear's death brings tears and crticism
Who's That Doggie in the Mirror?
I read this to my dog this morning, and then we had a long conversation about it. She, being a dog, thinks we have it backwards. Her thought is that we (humans) are by nature particularly susceptible to the illusion that reflected lightwaves from highly reflective surfaces share characteristics with actual animate objects. Or, as she likes to say, "you know, there's nothing really there, and you are quite the fool for making faces at it. Yes, I know it is life-like, but you know it is not actually life, right? You do know that? Right?" She can be quite sarcastic.
Of course, this all leads to a diatribe about projected images and the wasteful time suck that television and computers are. I tell her that computers are useful in ways she can't even imagine. She goes out into the yard to chase squirrels. I log in to check Charlie Sheen's twitter account.
Read the article NPR/I sniff, therefore I am. Are dogs self-conscious?
<>
Is it possible that dogs are self-aware but possibly not in ways that we always understand?
My dog loves to watch herself in the mirror - she knows it is her and she particularly likes it if I can be seen in the mirror as well. If you put a red mark on her head she would care less. But that's because she just wouldn't care about having a red mark.
If you show her a treat, however, she's never tried to eat the mirror; she turns around and gets it. I've had other dogs that I know are much smarter than her (at least from my human perspective), but they could care less about mirrors.
We'd be better off assuming they're all self-conscious and we're just not smart enough to figure out what that always means in that species than to assume they aren't self-conscious because they don't conform to our limited definition of this.
Read the article NPR/I sniff, therefore I am. Are dogs self-conscious?
<>
My dog, Boudreaux, read this article. He says you're full of it.
Read the article NPR/I sniff, therefore I am. Are dogs self-conscious?
You know, funny I should read this today. I was walking my dog this morning when it really struck me that my golden retriever probably thinks I am a silly human for not realizing how important it is to sniff every snowbank and every tree branch. After all, if you cannot smell it, clearly it does not exist. And how else are you supposed to catch up on the neighborhood gossip?
So, until we humans work out that little difficulty, our dogs and us are just going to have to continue our mutual dependency. Dogs smell, Humans look.
Read the article NPR/I sniff, therefore I am. Are dogs self-conscious?
Threat to World's Coral Reefs Deepens
The major chemical of which coral skeletons and sands are made is calcium carbonate, CaCO3. Calcium carbonate neutralizes acid (forming the Ca salt of the acid). There are zillions of tons of calcium carbonate in the ocean from corals that have died in the past eons, mostly in the form of coral sand.
Acid pollution in the oceans should not be a problem because the presence of coral sand will neutralize it. The exception is where pollution makes the acids excessively concentrated. CO2 dissolving in the ocean is not a great problem. CO2 out gasses from water, as it does from your soft drink. Slightly higher CO2 concentrations encourage algae that remove it. Filter feeders like corals then eat the algae.
Places where cities pollute with organic matter usually have large microscopic bacteria populations in the water. Filter feeders like shrimp, prawns, and oysters grow there in abundance. The Mississippi River outlet is one example where filter feeders help clean up the pollution.
Living coral reefs are a major remover of CO2 from the biosphere by converting it to CaCO3 skeletons. It is important to protect them for that reason
Read the article NPR/World's coral reefs facing serious threats
<>
I lived in the Philippines for several years. I would venture to various islands and visit fishing areas.
There you could not notice the occasional fisherman with an arm/hand missing or facial injuries with loss of sight. These guys had at
least once dynamite fished, when they experienced a fast fuse on their glass bottle of gunpowder.
Many of the reefs which I dived or fished had death circles in the reef where a blast shockwave had killed the corals. There were purse seine nets that could clear a reef of 90% of all the fish, regardless of size. The poorest nations' coastal fisheries will be the first to disappear and then it will be too late.
We should all be involved in promoting the sustainable harvesting of marine life by these nations in order to protect our own fisheries in the future.
Read the article NPR/World's coral reefs facing serious threats
READ MORE COMMENTS: JANUARY - FEBRUARY 2011
