The Hole in the Ozone Layer: Proof of massive human change?

Isn't the hole kind of definitive proof that humans can cause massive global alterations to the environemnt through widespread release of gases?

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

Of course. Climate change denial, however, does not RELY on the argument that humans can't cause drastic change; it's only claiming that humans aren't the cause of a particular kind of change. The "humans can't do this much damage" argument is not implied by it.

Frankly, I think that particular argument was already nonsensical if only for issues like nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear winter, let alone ozone depletion.

edited 28th Feb '11 5:26:28 PM by neoYTPism

Oh, because that's the rhetoric I'm seeing thrown my way.

"Humans can't possibly release that much CO 2!"

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

Yes, humans can cause that level of change. But as far as I'm concerned, technology is progressing at such a rate as to remove this danger... yesterday.

Now only to spread that level of technology through out the world.

Also, Nasa needed it anyway to launch shuttles and rockets through. They literally pick days where it's right above Florida.

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

Question: Has the hole in the Ozone not always been there?

Because we will never know the answer to that question (without time-travel), I fail to see how it is proof that humans cause massive change (even though we do...).

edited 28th Feb '11 5:33:09 PM by Swish

^^Why?

edited 28th Feb '11 5:32:41 PM by HungryJoe

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

We're pretty sure that it happened in recent years, yes.

Two reasons:

1) That ozone hole isn't actually a hole (darn misleading names), it's actually a tendency for parts of the atmosphere to get thinner during certain parts of the year. It's a natural cycle. As far as actual ozone depletion goes, the mass of ozone is decreasing every year, but by less every year.

2) Because we're not putting out nearly as much carbon dioxide. Look back at early cars, those things were incredibly inefficient, spitting out waste like there was no tomorrow. In a couple of generations, we're pressing on the possibility of having a car that runs on air and outputs cold air. Other forms of technology are following behind quite quickly.

EDIT: That NASA picture is misleading. How low is low and how high is high?

edited 28th Feb '11 5:44:18 PM by Usht

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

No, I mean why does NASA schedule launches to pass through it?

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

"Oh, because that's the rhetoric I'm seeing thrown my way." - Hungry Joe

Fine, but like I said, that rhetoric is not inherent in climate change denial. When you use ozone depletion as an analogy for this, make sure it's refuting specifically the "humans can't make drastic changes" argument rather than climate change denial in general.

edited 28th Feb '11 5:53:13 PM by neoYTPism

You're sending a rocket through the atmosphere. A rocket with a big, flaming pillar of smoke behind it. Let's not get into the level of damage that would cause if they didn't send it through the ozone hole. NASA has done their research.

edited 28th Feb '11 5:52:18 PM by Usht

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

Here you go

Wow that was a lot of ninjas for a short post.

edited 28th Feb '11 5:58:04 PM by deathjavu

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.

Yeah... 10 years of data (plus the last 10 years, I suppose) is not enough to claim "It never existed prior to (insert date here)."

x6Recent is also considered to be 50+ years (around WW 2 if not a tad earlier), right? But we have no data on the hole at that point... Without further evidence, there really is no way to prove it's being "created" one way or the other.

And because of that, my point stands.

edited 28th Feb '11 6:09:28 PM by Swish

At least it's currently stable after the decline or even recovering - at quite accuratly the rate that models predict. [1]

Your claim (or question) wasn't that at some time there was a ozone hole just as large as currently. You said "always".

Pour y voir clair, il suffit souvent de changer la direction de son regard www.xkcd.com/386/

While new technology lowers the amount of emissions for any particular use, the total amount of emissions is still increasing. Also, even with new technology, there aren't necessarily the right incentives to actually use it.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

Your point?

Anyway, yes, "always." As in: Did humans cause the hole in the ozone to begin with?

The question to start this topic is whether or not the hole is enough to prove that humans have caused damage. I don't really care if it got bigger due to humans, because that's not at issue. If the hole in the ozone has been on earth since the beginning of time, the question is moot, isn't it?

My point is that we have no way of knowing how long the hole has existed. Showing data for the past 20 years that displays its increasing and decreasing in size does not prove one way or the other how long the hole has existed. Now if the hole actually does disappear at some point, that would be something, but until then it is just speculation.

Again, my initial statement remains the same. I fail to see how the existence of a hole in the Ozone is proof that humans cause global environmental change, if there is no proof that humans caused the hole to begin with.

edited 28th Feb '11 10:39:07 PM by Swish

Hang on. I thought it was pretty well understood that anything you burn, whatever it is, increases the greenhouse effect which enlarges the ozone hole. So we don't know for sure how long the hole existed, okay. But is that relevant to the problem of it getting bigger?

edited 6th Mar '11 9:07:06 AM by johnnyfog

I'm a skeptical squirrel

The hole in the ozone layer has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. It was a result of chlorofluorocarbons and other similar chemicals that break down in the stratosphere and the products of which break down ozone. The hole was notably found increasing in size while the chemicals were legally used in aerosols and other such things, and it has begun to recover, albeit slowly, when the chemicals were banned as a reaction to the discovery. The ozone hole was noticed about twenty years after the ozone layer was being monitored, so there was data in which to compare it to. It's notable that, while there are seasonal changes in the ozone layer, the issue with the ozone hole is that it's significantly lower year-round that what it naturally should be.

Global climate change and the ozone hole are not the same thing, and they are only somewhat related.

edited 6th Mar '11 7:56:16 PM by Miijhal

I am amazed and appalled that there are people who don't think the Ozone hole was anthropogenic.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

Okay, so the ozone hole isn't proof of anything apart from CO causing it to get bigger. Which could theoretically mean anything(?)

So if climate change exists, then it's intangible, with no way to monitor its increase (Because of the cyclical weather changes)?

edited 6th Mar '11 7:11:03 PM by johnnyfog

I'm a skeptical squirrel

Sorry, I was unable to make sense of anything in that last post.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

^^How did you get any of that from what I posted?

edited 6th Mar '11 7:55:18 PM by Miijhal

The hole in the ozone layer resulted from an entirely different set of pollutants unrelated to greenhouse gases in any way except for the fact that both are gases. Chlorofluorocarbons and related chemicals, which were once used as propulsion for aerosol cans and whatnot, have a nasty habit of breaking down ozone and therefore, until they were banned, damaged the ozone layer. The ozone layer is now repairing itself because we stopped doing that. (We do still use damaging chemicals, such as most of the refrigerants we use in refrigerators and air conditioning units, but we don't go gleefully spraying those everywhere, so as long as they stay sealed far less damage is done.)

edited 6th Mar '11 8:21:24 PM by Chalkos

*Face Palm* The hole in the ozone layer (which, as has been noted, isn't actually a hole so much as a decrease in density, and changes seasonally at that) is over Antarctica. They do not shoot rockets through the ozone layer. Rockets have nothing to do with the ozone layer because (as has also been noted) the only thing that damage the ozone layer are refrigerants and old aerosol propellants and the like.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

And it's not smoke, it's water vapor for the most part.

Fight smart, not fair.