Hacker News Reader

Comment by forrestthewoods | Hacker News Reader

Why is Antarctica melting more now than when the ozone hole was a major issue in 90s? That was centered on Antarctica and has been largely fixed I think. Why is this happening now and not then? Or is now because of then? Can anyone provide a clear answer?

(edit: wtf? why would anyone downvote this? it's a legit and perfectly fair question.)

View on HN

> it's a legit and perfectly fair question.

Because conflating the ozone hole with global warming (two different and unrelated phenomenon) can be a legitimate product of confusion, but it's more commonly a denialist tactic on a par with "if evolution is real, why are there still monkeys?" See enough of it, you get uncharitable.

Actually I've heard this confusion more (i.e. on two separate occasions, IRL) from well-meaning environmental aficionados attempting to "prove" that global warming is real. I love "why are there still monkeys?", though. I think I'll be using that line sometime. b^)

Or, this kind of question is an opportunity to set the record straight for hundreds of people.

The ozone layer is AFAIK not correlated with heating. It blocks UV radiation which is harmful to humans and other living things but plays no significant role in temperature changes.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/sci...

There is no link between ozone and global warming. No scientist has ever claimed there is. The problem with reduced ozone was increased ultraviolet radiation and health problems associated with that.

why would anyone downvote this?

Because the mechanism behind the melting is already explained in The Fine Article.

> wtf? why would anyone downvote this? it's a legit and perfectly fair question

Because all science operates on the principle that theories are subject to reinterpretation upon new evidence, all science except climate change, whose dogma is not to be questioned.

Questioning the official line, in any manner, is verboten.

The ozone anomaly is still there. CFC gases has never really harmed it because those gases are heavier than the air, so it is a bit hard (not impossible, though) for them to get up there. The "hole" has always been over the poles because, obviously, there's no much sun rays there, which are required for the formation and un-formation of the ozone in the first place.

As to the relation of the subjects, I have seem many of the AGW defenders to claim that CFC, HFC and all the other gazes they claim is harmful to the "ozone" also are "greenhouse gases", which as I said before is a complete stupidity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com