Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 29 April 2008 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2008.787
News
Antarctic ice threatened by ozone-hole recovery
Global winds could accelerate melting.
Recovery of the ozone hole above Antarctica could warm the Antarctic and cause more ice to melt in coming decades, researchers say. As the ozone hole heals, wind patterns that shield the interior of the polar region from warm air may break down, causing warming in the Antarctica as well as warmer and drier conditions in Australia.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
These climatic models seem quite questionable in fact. Do we have to rely on them to guide our econologic policy? Don't we have more immediate important issues to? Energy and food for instance. Welcome back nuclear+hydrogen and genetically modified food!
I thought the ozone hole was bad. Now the hole is good? Interesting. I guess I better start using CFCs again. When will we stop acting like climate models are scientifically proven or worthy of publication? Over the last thirty years they have predicted everything from ice age to global warming. The more you learn in science the less you know.
Well put, Scott - you & I are but 2 of the millions who question all the GW BS. Yet at this moment, governments the world over are creating legislation based on these questionable models. I suspect that's because so many people are becoming rich by selling fear. Global Warming happens to be the flavor of the month yet our legislators fall for the same song & dance every time.
Larry, There is no doubt that carbon dioxide levels are much higher than they have been in the last 650,000 years. There is also no doubt that CO2 is a major driver of climate and is closely associated with global temperature. So, we know that all that extra CO2 is causing change. The bit we are uncertain about is the specifics of that change, because the global climate is a very complicated thing (as evidenced by this article among many others). The scariest thing about climate change, then, is this uncertainty. There is a bullet out there with our name on it and we have no idea from which direction it will come. Extreme caution is definitely warranted; legislators are not moving fast enough.
Dinosaurs had their shot, nature chose them for extinction. Its our world now, but who is to say that we are not headed the way of the dinosaur. Why should we prevent this ? Perhaps a worthier species would then take custody of this planet. It is denstiny.
(1) It's so well put by Christian, Scott, Larry, and Girish, and only Ben demonstrates the old good brain-washing pattern. Sorry, Ben, but the "bit of uncertainty" you mention just attains 100 %. It is clearly seen even in the results of all those billion-worth, pseudo-scientific "model simulations", let alone the well-known property of "small perturbation growth" (or "butterfly effect"), according to which even every indeed relatively small uncertainty can easily lead to arbitrarily large consequences... The canonical, official science doctrine totally based on those over-simplified models is as far from reality as any knowledge can be. Asking an astrologer opinion is equally "reliable" (but much less expensive!). Given that evident fact, how can you be sure in anything, including the true origin of temporal coincidence of modern climate change (far from being limited to average warming!) and increased human influence on environment? Both are real, of course, but to be at least generally convinced in the cause-and-effect relation here, one would just need the provably reliable and comprehensive description of the "Earth system", everything including, every "small perturbation". But we have the provably unreliable (and therefore totally corrupt) approach in that destructive official science and politics fuss (it's therefore politics, not science!). "I suspect that's because so many people are becoming rich by selling fear." Yes, Larry, one cannot say better. (2) A positive note I want to add is that the dominating humanly corrupt and scientifically inconsistent doctrine is not the only possible kind of objective knowledge (alias science), even though it is uniquely supported and formally imposed in all science sources today. As I rigorously show elsewhere (see e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4562 and the references therein), it is just the "least adequate", farthest from reality way of its formally "exact" (mathematical) description that shows therefore well-known severe departures from elementary consistency already for the simplest structures of the universe (recall persisting "quantum mysteries"). Should it be surprising that the same doctrine is absolutely inefficient for much more complicated system understanding? But they still uniquely support it, pay billions for its development everywhere and hundreds of billions for application of the ensuing "scientific" recommendations! Surprising? Maybe Girish is right, and SUCH "intelligent" species doesn't merit a destiny different from that of dinosaurs (he's not the first with the idea, anyway!)? But one should also know that other kind of science, causally complete and intrinsically consistent, is possible, really exists and solves real problems in various fields (see e.g. http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00156368 ), contrary to the official doctrine. I can cite here only two its most obvious results related to climate change and ignored by the official scientocracy and related trillion-worth practical decisions. One is that ANY real system of interacting entities has a large dynamic complexity (consistently defined now!) characterised by totally SPONTANEOUS, intrinsic, chaotically triggered switches between its NUMEROUS BUT MUTUALLY INCOMPATIBLE, objectively existing states (for comparison: official science "model", including its "complexity" imitations, always provides ONLY ONE, though maybe mechanically structured, solution-realisation for a system). It means that the system as complicated as Earth should NORMALLY change its state dramatically from time to time, EVEN WITHOUT any "external" (e.g. man-made) perturbation (recall the long serious of all previous climate changes). It does NOT mean, Ben, that it's not mainly our influence that could be at the origin of modern change. It could, but the ONLY way to know it with a minimum certainty is to have that now absent complete, unreduced description of real planetary system dynamics. But what is much more practically important (and scandalously ignored by our dear trillion-worth-decision-makers) - and that is the second relevant result of the universal science of complexity - is that once such a change of state emerges, for WHATEVER reason, Ben, there is absolutely NO sense to try to stop it by limiting our pollution effects (even if we could be sure that they are the reason, which is not the case!). You won't stop it, stupido bambino, in the same way as one cannot stop a snow avalanche once it has emerged in its full power. Is it so unexpected or difficult to understand? But now this generally evident conclusion is supported by the causally complete problem solution, rather than another lying "model" and its politically correct "simulation". The cost of only this conclusion of intrinsically consistent knowledge is at least the sum of wasted "Kyoto protocol" investment (hundreds of billions of US $) and ecological/climate "simulations" within the official science doctrine (> tens of billions). But here, I give it for free, in exchange for generous free access to Nature News (for a few days only, unfortunately!). (3) And finally, it seems that many such generally evident, consistent results (I only provide their necessary rigorous confirmation) are not taken into consideration for purely subjective reasons, because of selfish financial interests of various reigning mafias, in science and politics (fear selling, etc.). Many people understand the right solution, but their "democratic" governors still do the opposite, approaching all of us to the "dinosaur destiny". It is THESE "human factors", Ben, including the formally "democratic" but practically absolute power of corrupt governors (and related "scientists"!), that kill the Earth and human civilisation, much more than our (indeed harmful but avoidable!) physical influence on its natural structures. See http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0509234 for more details and conclusions of the described new kind of "optimistic perspective" based now on the causally complete kind of knowledge. It shows, in particular, that humans should make their important - and different ("non-Kyoto") - choices right now, while dinosaurs on two legs ... OK, you can do whatever you want, grab your millions and play in idiotic abstractions of scholar science, if you find them so exciting... At least YOUR destiny is known without any uncertainty, isn't it?
I do agree with the observation that one need to account for the effects of ozone hole recovery based on current actions on the future. Also I am of the opinion that models should include heights over 20-30 kilometers if they are to fully represent the atmospheric effects on climate change particularly due to rise in temperatrures,change in composition mainly in terms of distribution of fine particulate matter and aerosol,alteration in humidity profile and circulation patterns as well as cloud formation at high altitudes and its albedo effects. SURESHKUMAR.S,SCIENTIST AND HEAD,PME,NIIST,TRIVANDRUM
We are witnessing a typical approach to these sort of debates relating controversial matters: taking points to the extreme. Well, first of all, I suppose that ever since mankind start building some kind of knowledge (let us say scientific) has always constructed models on something, which were so reliable at the time as they are now. Nevertheless, they help us understand Nature and that's their ultimate value. A huge problem here with climate models is their use for what are and always will be political decisions. Politics deals bad with uncertainty (let us remind of the nuclear waste disposal problem), while uncertainty (and skepticism) are at the very heart of science itself. I have very little doubts that humankind has been changing the climate, and not only for the last 200 years or so, despite all the naturally variable parameters that also induce change without any intervention from human species. I suppose most of us are more or less well informed on the amount of data gathered that tell us how the environment has changed over the last 400,000 years or so, not to mention how dramatically, even for our present standards in a worst case scenario, did it changed in much remote eras of our Planet History. So, at the end it will only be a political decision, driven by economic interest or by social rupture in some part of the world. If we have the slightest feeling that, in some sort of way, we will be endangered then it is natural that we struggle for survival (that's what all species do, anyway). Finally, I think we could take one of two attitudes: just let it flow and take whatever consequences, or try to do something about it and in spite of being unable to stop the immediate consequences (the climate system has a huge inertia), at least we may prevent it of being much worse. Most of us discussing here probably will never feel the real outcome of climate change in their lifetime, but we should stop and think on what legacy are we willing to give to future generations.