Ozone hole is bigger than it has ever been

[KevinTheOmnivore]

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentSe...=1012571727085

Ozone hole is bigger than it has ever been

By Clive Cookson in Manchester
Published: September 12 2003 19:45 |
Last Updated: September 12 2003 19:45

The Antarctic ozone hole is bigger than it has ever been at this time of year, threatening populated regions of south America and New Zealand with harmful levels of ultraviolet radiation.


Last year's hole was smaller than those recorded over the previous decade, leading to hopes that the protective ozone layer in the upper atmosphere was beginning to recover from its destruction by man-made CFC chemicals. But early observations reported on Friday to the British Association science festival at Salford University show that the hole, which appears every southern spring, is returning with a vengeance. The findings suggest that reduction of CFCs will take longer than expected to benefit the ozone layer.

Alan Rodger, who runs the British Antarctic Survey ozone-monitoring programme, said: "Last year's smaller hole should be regarded as exceptional and clearly a one-off event. It was... nothing to do with any reduction in ozone depleting chemicals."

The concentration of ozone destroying chemicals at the Earth's surface has fallen since 1994, following international agreement to phase out CFCs and related compounds through the Montreal Protocol. But levels in the stratosphere lag behind the surface by several years.

Dr Rodger said they are probably near their peak. "We predict that it will be a decade or more before we can say unambiguously that the ozone hole is recovering - assuming that the decline in ozone depleting chemicals continues," he said.

[Big Papa Goat]

Only communists care about the environment

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Actually, they tend not to.

Commie bastards.

[Perndog]

Yeah, it's only those goddamn fascists that care about the environment.

[kahljorn]

We need a Gaint ozone bandaid and alot of nuesboringcrap, we gots lots o' boring news round these parts! Not to insult you, Kev, nor the tread. Something rhymed there...

[Zhukov]

Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore

Actually, they tend not to.

Commie bastards.

Is this a joke or what?


Nice to see that Tasmania wasn't mentioned in that article. Only fucking kiwi land. That'd be right. They get lord of the rings and now their shit dont stink and they are being mentioned in ozone layer articles. Aren't we populated enough?! Next they will have their own prime minister.

Although, to be fair, it does us a minute amount of damage compared to what New Zealand must get - being thousands of kilometres further south and everything.

[Drew Katsikas]

EDIT: stupid reply, sorry.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Is this a joke or what?

Please, defend the stellar environmental record held by the Soviet Union and China.

[The One and Only...]

Oh, but wait: you must remember that "the Soviet Union was essentially a capitalist society".

Yes, I have actually read that. Or, at least, something to that effect.

That's worse than people who think that fascism was an entirely right-wing movement, despite the fact that Mussolini was left-wing.

[Zhukov]

They weren't communist. Stalinism was the name of the game.

I heard you use that term yourself somewhere, so don't play vince.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Right, and we could say that the U.S. isn't a "true" capitalist nation, because we have welfare state policies such as social security and expanded Medicare.....

Point is, for all intensive purposes, we are the model for Capitalism, and the SU was the model for Communism. Perhaps Cuba isn't so bad, but they are also a tiny island with a considerably smaller population than most industrialized nations. So, Look at China, North Korea, and Russia. Did they, or have they, been beacons of environmental standards....?

And even on the micro- level, a lot of so-called Communists I know place environmental concerns well below others. Why? Well, they are supposedly all about "theworker." Well what is used by business as an excuse to drive down wages? That's right, environmental standards that cost the companies money.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

I heard you use that term yourself somewhere, so don't play vince.

I said that because it's very true. Communism would be great in theory - but the fact of the matter is the human nature will never allow for it.

In other words, I don't think that we will ever have a truly communist society. I am a strong believer that "dictatorship of the proletariat" will always become "dictatorship over the proletariat." Even Cuba shares this sort of problem.

[Zhukov]

You can have welfare and still have Capitalism. Capitalism doesn't require the non-existance of welfare.

And I never said the USSR wasn't a "true" communist state. I say it was not evan a 'false' communist state.

The union may have been the model communist state for non-communists, but not for us.

If you want to start a thread about whether or not the USSR was "communist or not", do so. I don't want to talk about it but I will still reply.

And the reason that the enviroment is put behind the needs of "The Workers" is becasue once the Capitalist system of waste and destruction is ended, the enviroment will probably do better. There is no point trying to save the environment under capitalism becasue it is like a cup of water in an ocean, and companies and corporations wont really feature prominently in the future.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Thus proving my point that modern day Communists don't care about the here and NOW environment.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I understand the Soviet Union debate you're getting at, but they were still controlled by a one-party, Communist system, filled with men who saw themselves as the torch carriers of Marxism. Whether or not they put that into practice is another subject, but it doesn't change the fact that men who saw themselves as Communists dumped toxic waste and polluted the skies just as much, if not more than every other capitalist country.

[Zhukov]

Thus proving my point that modern day Communists don't care about the here and NOW environment.

Ok, Ok.... well I can say that enviromentalists of today don't care about the future of the enviroment..... And socialist groups are usualy swarming with hippies; they usually care. Plus, communists don't go out of their way to destroy the environment, and we really do want the future to be the HERE AND NOW... but I suppose you win.

filled with men who saw themselves as the torch carriers of Marxism.

Thats what they told people yeah... But they didn't believe their own lies. Stalin wrote a book called "The problems of Leninism" (or something to tht affect). It's just like GWB, you don't think he thinks that war on Iraq is defending liberty and democracy?


I agree with you that the USSR, China et al polluted the enviro even worse. I was watching a documentary in which the USSR had a plan to radiate wheat seeds to make them some kind of 'Hulk seeds', needless to say, it went haywire and the place got contaminated.

I said that because it's very true. Communism would be great in theory - but the fact of the matter is the human nature will never allow for it.

I was refering to big Kev's use of it. :/

Human Nature will not allow it? Maybe you should start a thread.

[VinceZeb]

Don't talk bad about about the SU, it may make Zhukov cry.

[Zhukov]

What are you talking about about?

I talked bad about about about it in my own post.

I take back what I said before - Vince should now start a thread.

[Big Papa Goat]

Even in theory communism and socialism in their classical forms would not be environmentally friendly. Perfectly working communism would consume resources and pollute just as much as capitalism, although, it would be easier to curb these problems in a communist state.
I feel this discussion of communism in this thread is my fault, and that makes me and at the same time.

[Zhukov]

It is possible to live a modern life through naturaly reacuring resources, so we don't really need pollution at all.

I think the discussion of communism is my fault, as it is in a few other threads. I have been posting more than usual lately. :/




...Are you SURE that is not an emu?

[CaptainBubba]

Back on the main point: This reminds me of "global warming", with gathering data on some level of heat/ozone in a small period of time and freaking out when it hits its periodic absolute maximums and minimums. Is it not obvious that all things regarding our enviroment fluctuate? Is there any scientist stupid enough to think that the temperature or the ozone Isn't going to have periods of growth?

We've only been observing the ozone for what? 2 decades? 3 decades? I'm sure it has been much bigger than this in the past. Scientists simply need funding and the more scare they manage to stir up the more eager people are to give it to them.

Yunno how we have global warming now? Well about 30 years ago they were heralding a new ice age from "global cooling" . I kid you not.

[Big Papa Goat]

When my friend gave me the pic he said it was an osterich, but I guess it might be an emu :/

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by CaptainBubba

Back on the main point: This reminds me of "global warming", with gathering data on some level of heat/ozone in a small period of time and freaking out when it hits its periodic absolute maximums and minimums. Is it not obvious that all things regarding our enviroment fluctuate? Is there any scientist stupid enough to think that the temperature or the ozone Isn't going to have periods of growth?

.....Right, but most global warming theorists acknowledge that our earth's history is one of fluctuating trends. Those scientists you call "stupid" comprise a large portion of the global scientific community. This community agrees that while heating trends have happened, this one is probably being sped up by our own practices.

We've only been observing the ozone for what? 2 decades? 3 decades? I'm sure it has been much bigger than this in the past. Scientists simply need funding and the more scare they manage to stir up the more eager people are to give it to them.

So? The Rockefellers and the DuPonts invested in bullshit eugenic research, but some good stuff actually came out of that Malthusian madness. Your conspiracy theory about an international plot of greedy scientists seems to be a bit of a stretch, however. :/

Yunno how we have global warming now? Well about 30 years ago they were heralding a new ice age from "global cooling" . I kid you not.

The indicators of a warming problem might be the subject of this article, as well as the melting ice caps. I think the "freeze fear" you're mentioning has little to do with it. There are REAL substantive causes for alarm here....

[O71394658]

Nothing would really happen if the ice caps melted. It's a crock of shit, that whole "Waterworld" the ice caps will melt garbage.

Seriously though, I'm not saying global warming doesn't exist, but it is greatly, greatly blown out of proportion. Many would argue that it doesn't exist. In fact, all of the pHd holding climatologists in the United States (I think there were only about 65 in the article I read several years ago) don't really believe in global warming, or believe it's not a big problem at all. Funny considering they know the most about it. :/ , don't ya think?

Also, they justed tested increase C02 levels in relation to crop production and found that as c02 levels increased, so did crop yields. This is contrary to the popular opinion that global warming would hurt and destroy global food production.

[kahljorn]

I read that too, but if i remembered right it was also mentioned that we may need to move our crops to keep them out of the sun so to speak. Arid desertish areas.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by O71394658

Nothing would really happen if the ice caps melted. It's a crock of shit, that whole "Waterworld" the ice caps will melt garbage.

Water levels around the world would rise. This would alter costal grounds, create new ones, and poor New Orleans is hangin' in there for dear life as it is. Numbers mustn't like mardi gras.

Seriously though, I'm not saying global warming doesn't exist, but it is greatly, greatly blown out of proportion. Many would argue that it doesn't exist. In fact, all of the pHd holding climatologists in the United States (I think there were only about 65 in the article I read several years ago) don't really believe in global warming, or believe it's not a big problem at all. Funny considering they know the most about it. :/ , don't ya think?

Funny how only American climatologists, many of them invested in by corporations who would oppose emission regulations, seem to be the only opinions that matter to you.

I however do agree that the issue has taken on more of a political nature than a scientific one, but this runs both ways. People like Rush Limbaugh have gone out of their way to argue that global warming doesn't exist. That of course is a falshood, so the new company line now is "well, it exists, but so what?" They should make up their minds.

Also, they justed tested increase C02 levels in relation to crop production and found that as c02 levels increased, so did crop yields. This is contrary to the popular opinion that global warming would hurt and destroy global food production.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the concern is crop production, per se. Wasn't the issue that g.w. would raise crop lines, with the ultimate doomsday prediction being that our fly-over state crop resources would ultimately leave us for Canada....? Not certain, just speculating.