worsen year by year for the next century even if we cut carbon dioxide emissions by 50% right now and hold that level., I really don't worry much about any of this environmental stuff. I subscribe to the Buckminster Fuller thoughts on mother earth. When it gets enough of the problems it will eliminate the cause of the problems, i.e. humans!
I've no particular axe to grind, other than being subject to rather more cancer causing rays. Also, you're not quite right in that the ozone hole size is being monitored - it has gone from "hey, is that a hole?" to "s*it, that's a vast hole!" in 25 years.
Regards, Greg.P.
The move is the other way here - all the normal outdoor jobs have disappeared so we spend more time indoors.
Greg, please show where I said it was not being monitored. What I DID say was that it had been discovered, and we had no way of knowing when it began.
I'm sure you think we're peasants with no ability to measure solar radiation here in NZ, but you would be wrong. The solar radiation level has increased markedly in the last 25 years. We are quite a long way from the "hole", but the edges of that hole taper and we're suffering from the effects of that ozone taper. Every five years we borrow NASA's U2 (I was involved ten odd years back) and in between times we use ordinary weather ballons with locally developed measuring equipment.
Just change your diet from beef to termites!
Those of us living on islands tend to be a little more touchy on the subject - the flaw of the Buckminster-Fuller viewpoint is that the smart and knowledgable humans will be the first ones eliminated.
Ah. Smart and knowledgeable people only live on islands! Perhaps those "knowledgable" (sic) people should try spell checking!
The size of the "hole", especially the Antartic, fluctuates quite dramatically.
Why would anyone expect the ozone layer to be uniform?
Fair point, although I'm unsure if it has any relevance. :-)
Exactly - we become smart and knowledgeable (ouch) when our feet get wet!
Damn MS spell-checker attempts to correct so many already correct words and accepts so many incorrectly used words that those of us with wet feet tend to turn it off!
Regards, Greg.P.
The relevance is that you said (and I quote): "Also, you're not quite right in that the ozone hole size is being monitored - it has gone from "hey, is that a hole?" to "s*it, that's a vast hole!" in 25 years.
I NEVER said it wasn't being monitored, and you imply I did.
in article snipped-for-privacy@ihug.co.nz, Gregory Procter at snipped-for-privacy@ihug.co.nz wrote on 1/3/05 10:48 AM:
Good. I'm safe :)
You didn't claim that the hole might have been there for a million years?
knowledgable humans will be the first ones eliminated.< And this is a bad idea, why?
Err...having worked with scientists and Engineers from NZ, I'm well aware of your capabilities...
So, what causes the hole? And what is it's periodic function?
What do you expect from software developed in a state spelled Washington, where most of the locals pronounce it "Warshington"?
Oh, and bye the way, I meant that ozone deplection IS the suspected cause of increased cancers, etc. You seemed to take it that I thought the theory was suspect. From what I can see, it (the theory) is valid, just pointing out that it remains a theory, rather than fact.
Regards,
DAve
Wolf, you're probably the best thinker on the this off topic thread. However, you are still taking the enviromentalist claptrap on the subject. There is a very good reason why there is a full hole at the southern end of the globe and not at the northern end. When you find out, you will be quite supprised.
-- Why isn't there an Ozone Hole at the NORTH Pole?
Last I heard it was because of an active Antarctic volcano...
Paul said that that they COULD have been there; I agreed. Not the same thing as asserting that they HAD been there that long. And I continued by saying that all we knew was when we first noticed them. Go back a read it for yourself.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required