News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The melting of Antarctica.

Re:The melting of Antarctica by forrestthewoods on Monday March 16, 2015 @03:08PM (#9213564)
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.)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The melting of Antarctica by rodgerd on Monday March 16, 2015 @03:15PM (#9213629)
> 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The melting of Antarctica by jessaustin on Monday March 16, 2015 @03:22PM (#9213683)
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^)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The melting of Antarctica by ekanes on Monday March 16, 2015 @03:23PM (#9213691)
Or, this kind of question is an opportunity to set the record straight for hundreds of people.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The melting of Antarctica by SerpentJoe on Monday March 16, 2015 @03:14PM (#9213612)
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...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The melting of Antarctica by jessaustin on Monday March 16, 2015 @03:17PM (#9213650)
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The melting of Antarctica by rosser on Monday March 16, 2015 @03:18PM (#9213653)
why would anyone downvote this?

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

[ Parent | on HN ]
[dead]
Re:The melting of Antarctica by Jtsummers on Monday March 16, 2015 @03:31PM (#9213744)
It's not reasonable to call this a "brain-numbingly stupid" question. The question is legit for someone who has either not studied or not read about the subject matter, but primarily is aware of it via news reporting and random discussions. It's somewhat fair, though still impolite, to call it ignorant. It's fairest to call a question (or questioner) confused. But ignorance and confusion are things that we can fix: by answering the posed question or providing a source to material that can answer the question.

Best solution? Don't call someone's question ignorant or stupid. Instead, be a decent human being and help alleviate the confusion by answering the question.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The melting of Antarctica by dang on Monday March 16, 2015 @03:28PM (#9213727)
> brain-numbingly stupid

This comment violates the HN guidelines. Please follow them when posting on this site:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The melting of Antarctica by happyscrappy on Monday March 16, 2015 @03:36PM (#9213790)
> 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The melting of Antarctica by jstalin on Monday March 16, 2015 @03:53PM (#9213921)
Questioning the official line, in any manner, is verboten.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The melting of Antarctica by GlobalChange on Tuesday March 17, 2015 @03:55AM (#9216734)
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]