Mending Ozone Hole May Benefit Climate Change

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Efforts to repair a giant breach in the stratosphere could also help slow global warming*

By David Biello

Decades of chemical pollution have damaged the ozone layer of the upper atmosphere that shields Earth from the harmful effects of the sun's ultraviolet rays, each summer eating a hole over the South Pole that expands to nearly the size of Antarctica. But since 1996, when an international treaty banned the culprit chemical refrigerants and propellants (known as CFCs, or chlorofluorocarbons), the size of the seasonal tear has been shrinking—and scientists predict it may stop forming by the end of this century.

That is not just good news for the ozone hole, it is also good news for the climate. Atmospheric scientists note in a new study published in Science that sewing up the rift in the ozone (a type of oxygen) layer may help heal another environmental woe: climate change.

The reason: closing the gash may affect the flow of winds known as the westerlies around Antarctica, which impact everything from the extent of sea ice to the location of deserts in the Southern Hemisphere. According to scientific studies and mathematical models developed for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—which last year determined that the changing climate is largely a man-made danger—global warming has shifted these winds toward the poles, altering weather patterns throughout the Southern Hemisphere. The new research shows that mending the ozone may reverse warming in Antarctica and, potentially, the globe.

"The winds drive everything," says study author Lorenzo Polvani, an atmospheric scientist at Columbia University, "locations of storms, dry zones and deserts, the ice and the ocean circulation as well as the carbon uptake of the oceans." For decades, these winds have been speeding up near Antarctica; repairing the ozone would weaken the winds, he says, and shift them back toward the equator, affecting weather in the entire Southern Hemisphere, including Antarctica as well as Australia, parts of Africa and South America.

This also means Earth's southernmost continent might experience warming in future as the winds continue to shift and allow relatively warmer air to cover it, potentially speeding the melting of ice shelves. In addition, if there were no hole, the replenished ozone would trap even more heat as greenhouse gas concentrations also rise, according to Polvani.

Atmospheric scientist Judith Perlwitz of the University of Colorado at Boulder and her colleagues reached a similar conclusion, published recently in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. But she notes that none of the models on which scientists base these predictions tell the whole story, because they have yet to include all possible variables in their calculations. For instance, she says, no one has factored in the role that the ocean—critical to the regulation of Earth's temperature—would play if the ozone hole is closed.

Perlwitz says that computer simulations including ocean impacts are now being run, and could help scientists better predict the potential consequences of global warming and the changing ozone—and what must be done to limit the damage.

*Erratum (6/16/08): We regret the misunderstanding created by the original headline and wording of this article, which stated that mending the ozone layer could speed climate change.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=mending-ozone-good-for-global-warming

[mawilson 2,133]

Why does everyone want to slow global warming?

The world is warming at the moment - why not just accept it and learn to live with it?

[Aubrey 10]

Why does everyone want to slow global warming?

The world is warming at the moment - why not just accept it and learn to live with it?

Among other things, melting of the ice caps will flood millions of acres of land along coasts, displacing millions of people. Not to mention that it affects weather patterns, increasing drought, floods, storm strengths (thing Katrina), etc.

Do some Google searching and you'll see plenty of other reasons to STOP global warming.

Effects of global warming - Wikipedia

Edited July 4, 2008 by Aubrey

[GaryC 7]

Why does everyone want to slow global warming?

The world is warming at the moment - why not just accept it and learn to live with it?

Among other things, melting of the ice caps will flood millions of acres of land along coasts, displacing millions of people. Not to mention that it affects weather patterns, increasing drought, floods, storm strengths (thing Katrina), etc.

Do some Google searching and you'll see plenty of other reasons to STOP global warming.

Effects of global warming - Wikipedia

Funny, I keep hearing how the polar caps are already melting. How glaciers have receded but I haven't seen anywhere that the oceans are taking over the coasts. But even if it does then all it will mean is we have a different coastline. Big deal. The earth is going to do whatever the earth wants to do. We can't speed it up or slow it down. All we can do is adapt to it or die.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The potential for major sea level rise depends mostly on a significant melting of the polar ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica, as this is where the vast majority of glacial ice is located. The British Antarctic Survey has determined from climate modeling that for at least the next 50 years, snowfall on the continent of Antarctica should continue to exceed glacial losses from global warming. The amount of glacial loss on the continent of Antarctica is not increasing significantly, and it is not known if the continent will experience a warming or a cooling trend, although the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed in recent years, causing glacier retreat in that region.(BAS) If all the ice on the polar ice caps were to melt away, the oceans of the world would rise an estimated 70 m (230 ft). However, with little major melt expected in Antarctica, sea level rise of not more than 0.5 m (1.6 ft) is expected through the 21st century, with an average annual rise of 0.004 m (0.013 ft) per year. Thermal expansion of the world's oceans will contribute, independent of glacial melt, enough to double those figures.(NSIDC2)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_gl...glacier_retreat

[mawilson 2,133]

The potential for major sea level rise depends mostly on a significant melting of the polar ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica, as this is where the vast majority of glacial ice is located. The British Antarctic Survey has determined from climate modeling that for at least the next 50 years, snowfall on the continent of Antarctica should continue to exceed glacial losses from global warming. The amount of glacial loss on the continent of Antarctica is not increasing significantly, and it is not known if the continent will experience a warming or a cooling trend, although the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed in recent years, causing glacier retreat in that region.(BAS) If all the ice on the polar ice caps were to melt away, the oceans of the world would rise an estimated 70 m (230 ft). However, with little major melt expected in Antarctica, sea level rise of not more than 0.5 m (1.6 ft) is expected through the 21st century, with an average annual rise of 0.004 m (0.013 ft) per year. Thermal expansion of the world's oceans will contribute, independent of glacial melt, enough to double those figures.(NSIDC2)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_gl...glacier_retreat

So we'll have less ice. Great. Still don't see why it's such a bad thing.

[mawilson 2,133]

Among other things, melting of the ice caps will flood millions of acres of land along coasts, displacing millions of people. Not to mention that it affects weather patterns, increasing drought, floods, storm strengths (thing Katrina), etc.

So you're saying that warming is universally bad?

Wouldn't it also open up vast areas of previously unlivable lands?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The potential for major sea level rise depends mostly on a significant melting of the polar ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica, as this is where the vast majority of glacial ice is located. The British Antarctic Survey has determined from climate modeling that for at least the next 50 years, snowfall on the continent of Antarctica should continue to exceed glacial losses from global warming. The amount of glacial loss on the continent of Antarctica is not increasing significantly, and it is not known if the continent will experience a warming or a cooling trend, although the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed in recent years, causing glacier retreat in that region.(BAS) If all the ice on the polar ice caps were to melt away, the oceans of the world would rise an estimated 70 m (230 ft). However, with little major melt expected in Antarctica, sea level rise of not more than 0.5 m (1.6 ft) is expected through the 21st century, with an average annual rise of 0.004 m (0.013 ft) per year. Thermal expansion of the world's oceans will contribute, independent of glacial melt, enough to double those figures.(NSIDC2)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_gl...glacier_retreat

So we'll have less ice. Great. Still don't see why it's such a bad thing.

Less land to live on - eventually. And probably more wars

[Aubrey 10]

Among other things, melting of the ice caps will flood millions of acres of land along coasts, displacing millions of people. Not to mention that it affects weather patterns, increasing drought, floods, storm strengths (thing Katrina), etc.

So you're saying that warming is universally bad?

Wouldn't it also open up vast areas of previously unlivable lands?

How do you figure? I wouldn't call a flooded area livable. Nor a new desert. Nor a city post-hurricane. Rising oceans will reduce the acreage of land in total - permanently flooding coastal regions (unless you're planning on building a house under the ocean...).

It still amazes me that people bought into this Bush propaganda garbage, and now even that ignorant administration has admitted we're contributing to global warming and people STILL don't believe. Ignorance is bliss, I guess?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Evolution of the planet. Learn to live with it!

[mawilson 2,133]

Among other things, melting of the ice caps will flood millions of acres of land along coasts, displacing millions of people. Not to mention that it affects weather patterns, increasing drought, floods, storm strengths (thing Katrina), etc.

So you're saying that warming is universally bad?

Wouldn't it also open up vast areas of previously unlivable lands?

How do you figure? I wouldn't call a flooded area livable. Nor a new desert. Nor a city post-hurricane. Rising oceans will reduce the acreage of land in total - permanently flooding coastal regions (unless you're planning on building a house under the ocean...).

It still amazes me that people bought into this Bush propaganda garbage, and now even that ignorant administration has admitted we're contributing to global warming and people STILL don't believe. Ignorance is bliss, I guess?

Let's leave politics out of this, ok?

The end of the last ice age (or more correctly, the end of the last glacial period within

the current ice age - the end of the last ice age has not yet come) was triggered by the

melting of the Antarctic ice sheet only about 10-15,000 years ago, which also opened up

huge areas that were previously unlivable.

Canada, Russia, Greenland, Antarctica and parts of Europe all contain large areas that

are essentially frozen wastelands, currently uninhabited due to adverse temperature

conditions.

Most of the human population of the planet lives close to the equatorial belt, where it's

the warmest.

While warming the planet will flood and destroy some areas, there's no doubt that it will

also improve the habitability of other areas. All in all, I'm not convinced that the net

effect is going to be negative.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Among other things, melting of the ice caps will flood millions of acres of land along coasts, displacing millions of people. Not to mention that it affects weather patterns, increasing drought, floods, storm strengths (thing Katrina), etc.

So you're saying that warming is universally bad?

Wouldn't it also open up vast areas of previously unlivable lands?

How do you figure? I wouldn't call a flooded area livable. Nor a new desert. Nor a city post-hurricane. Rising oceans will reduce the acreage of land in total - permanently flooding coastal regions (unless you're planning on building a house under the ocean...).

It still amazes me that people bought into this Bush propaganda garbage, and now even that ignorant administration has admitted we're contributing to global warming and people STILL don't believe. Ignorance is bliss, I guess?

Let's leave politics out of this, ok?

The end of the last ice age (or more correctly, the end of the last glacial period within

the current ice age - the end of the last ice age has not yet come) was triggered by the

melting of the Antarctic ice sheet only about 10-15,000 years ago, which also opened up

huge areas that were previously unlivable.

Canada, Russia, Greenland, Antarctica and parts of Europe all contain large areas that

are essentially frozen wastelands, currently uninhabited due to adverse temperature

conditions.

Most of the human population of the planet lives close to the equatorial belt, where it's

the warmest.

While warming the planet will flood and destroy some areas, there's no doubt that it will

also improve the habitability of other areas. All in all, I'm not convinced that the net

effect is going to be negative.

The difference is the rate of acceleration of that change. Drag it out over a few thousand years and humans as well as all animal and plant live can adjust hopefully. If those changes occur within in this next century then we're all f##ked. I'll take the worldwide consensus of climate scientist's word for it - that human produced greenhouse gases are rapidly accelerated climate change and on the positive side, there is a good chance that we can not only drastically slow down the rate, but can reverse some of the damage as demonstrated with the ozone. It wasn't until ozone depleting chemicals were banned that we are gradually seeing the ozone hole shrink - whereas before it was growing.

[GaryC 7]

Among other things, melting of the ice caps will flood millions of acres of land along coasts, displacing millions of people. Not to mention that it affects weather patterns, increasing drought, floods, storm strengths (thing Katrina), etc.

So you're saying that warming is universally bad?

Wouldn't it also open up vast areas of previously unlivable lands?

How do you figure? I wouldn't call a flooded area livable. Nor a new desert. Nor a city post-hurricane. Rising oceans will reduce the acreage of land in total - permanently flooding coastal regions (unless you're planning on building a house under the ocean...).

It still amazes me that people bought into this Bush propaganda garbage, and now even that ignorant administration has admitted we're contributing to global warming and people STILL don't believe. Ignorance is bliss, I guess?

Let's leave politics out of this, ok?

The end of the last ice age (or more correctly, the end of the last glacial period within

the current ice age - the end of the last ice age has not yet come) was triggered by the

melting of the Antarctic ice sheet only about 10-15,000 years ago, which also opened up

huge areas that were previously unlivable.

Canada, Russia, Greenland, Antarctica and parts of Europe all contain large areas that

are essentially frozen wastelands, currently uninhabited due to adverse temperature

conditions.

Most of the human population of the planet lives close to the equatorial belt, where it's

the warmest.

While warming the planet will flood and destroy some areas, there's no doubt that it will

also improve the habitability of other areas. All in all, I'm not convinced that the net

effect is going to be negative.

The difference is the rate of acceleration of that change. Drag it out over a few thousand years and humans as well as all animal and plant live can adjust hopefully. If those changes occur within in this next century then we're all f##ked. I'll take the worldwide consensus of climate scientist's word for it - that human produced greenhouse gases are rapidly accelerated climate change and on the positive side, there is a good chance that we can not only drastically slow down the rate, but can reverse some of the damage as demonstrated with the ozone. It wasn't until ozone depleting chemicals were banned that we are gradually seeing the ozone hole shrink - whereas before it was growing.

What you don't seem to understand that even if the entire world suddenly became carbon neutral the climate will still do what it is doing, finishing up from the last ice age. We are warming naturally because we are supposed to. CO2 levels are rising as a reaction to warmer weather not from the piddly little amount we contribute. Compared to the naturally occurring CO2 our contribution is minuscule. And the idea that this is some sort of a accelerated is also bogus. Scientists can't tell if a previous warming occurred over the span of a hundred years or a thousand. That is just more fear mongering. The planet is changing and we are neither causing it or can stop it. Get used to it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The difference is the rate of acceleration of that change. Drag it out over a few thousand years and humans as well as all animal and plant live can adjust hopefully. If those changes occur within in this next century then we're all f##ked. I'll take the worldwide consensus of climate scientist's word for it - that human produced greenhouse gases are rapidly accelerated climate change and on the positive side, there is a good chance that we can not only drastically slow down the rate, but can reverse some of the damage as demonstrated with the ozone. It wasn't until ozone depleting chemicals were banned that we are gradually seeing the ozone hole shrink - whereas before it was growing.

What you don't seem to understand that even if the entire world suddenly became carbon neutral the climate will still do what it is doing, finishing up from the last ice age. We are warming naturally because we are supposed to. CO2 levels are rising as a reaction to warmer weather not from the piddly little amount we contribute. Compared to the naturally occurring CO2 our contribution is minuscule. And the idea that this is some sort of a accelerated is also bogus. Scientists can't tell if a previous warming occurred over the span of a hundred years or a thousand. That is just more fear mongering. The planet is changing and we are neither causing it or can stop it. Get used to it.

That's not what the consensus is among climate scientists around the world. I'll take their analysis and predictions over yours, and the majority of people around the world are on board as well.

[natty bumppo 297]

The potential for major sea level rise depends mostly on a significant melting of the polar ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica, as this is where the vast majority of glacial ice is located. The British Antarctic Survey has determined from climate modeling that for at least the next 50 years, snowfall on the continent of Antarctica should continue to exceed glacial losses from global warming. The amount of glacial loss on the continent of Antarctica is not increasing significantly, and it is not known if the continent will experience a warming or a cooling trend, although the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed in recent years, causing glacier retreat in that region.(BAS) If all the ice on the polar ice caps were to melt away, the oceans of the world would rise an estimated 70 m (230 ft). However, with little major melt expected in Antarctica, sea level rise of not more than 0.5 m (1.6 ft) is expected through the 21st century, with an average annual rise of 0.004 m (0.013 ft) per year. Thermal expansion of the world's oceans will contribute, independent of glacial melt, enough to double those figures.(NSIDC2)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_gl...glacier_retreat

So we'll have less ice. Great. Still don't see why it's such a bad thing.

Less land to live on - eventually. And probably more wars

another meaning for "global warming" ?