The Ozone Hole Never Mattered

The Ozone Hole peak size hasn’t changed since the CFC ban was implemented, but it never mattered anyway.  Here is why. It forms every year during 24 hours of darkness in the Antarctic winter, and disappears as soon as the sun returns in spring.

ozone_hole_plot.gif (752×478)

How Ozone is made — Stratosphere Ozone   Methyl bromide   CFC   HCFC Loss of the Ozone layer  Antarctic  The WE — State of Planet

The scare story about the Ozone Hole is that increased UV reaching the surface of the Earth will cause more skin cancer. But given that the Ozone Hole only appears when there is little or no solar radiation, that argument was always a total fraud, like everything else the left believes.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to The Ozone Hole Never Mattered

  1. DD More says:

    Seeing as there are have been less than 5,000 permanently stationed residents in Antarctica, wouldn’t it have been cheaper just to buy them all some High Quality Sun Screen for when they are laying around at 10 degree temperatures?

  2. GW Smith says:

    Wow. Very interesting. How long have we known that one?

  3. Andy DC says:

    It is odd the way the ozone scare seemed to disappear. I was naïve enough to believe that the CFC ban worked. In reality, it probably didn’t meant zilch.

    • arn says:

      I was a child when the ozone layer scare was the absolute,only and undiniable truth,
      and even at that age i was obviously was a conspiracy nutter,

      because there was a thing i simply could not understand at that time.

      I knew that almost all CFC(in my country it’s called FCKW)
      in this world which was blown into the atmosphere happened to be
      in the northern Hemisphere,as at that time China and india were
      underdeveloped and africa too-
      the only places with above-third world status and significant population were in southamerica
      and even they were much behind the west.
      Only Australia was on western level.

      I simply could not understand why in hell the southern
      ozon hole was so much bigger than the northern one while
      only a fraction of worlds CFC was blown into the southern atmosphere.

      Sadly noone was able to explain it to me and almost noone cared about this very important fact.

      Later(when i grew up) i realised that i was absolutely right
      and most scientists and politicians and completely corrupt assholes and that they always put agenda over facts
      as those guys never bite the butthole they kiss and never fail to creats ‘yet another tax’ to keep their parasiticifestyle.

      At the same time a great ‘tree dying scare’ happened in the media((at least in Germany)
      “all trees on the highways (and later everywhere else are gonna die,)
      because of car fumes”
      and i asked myself.
      “How the hell are trees dying in open areas where air is circulating,
      while at the same time noone gives a shit about little children and babies in mega cities with a much higher car density and much bigger car fume
      output due to hundreds of thousands of cars in the cities and permanent traffic jam and low air circulation(=smog=much higher air pollution scale than highway trees have to ‘suffer’ from.

      Again-the tree dying never happened.
      Germany is still full of trees.

      The only difference between tree dying,ozon holes and climate warming
      is that all three predictions turned out to be pure bullshit,
      the only difference-while tree dying and ozon holes were buried and forgotten instead of being exposed as big failures in science(just as global cooling)
      global warming is well alive and kicking

      and you can bet your ass that the fourth horseman of global scare(=global warming)
      will eventually turn out to be an illusion just like the other free(ozon,tree dying,global cooling)

  4. Thomas H Belstler says:

    I never believed the Ozone myth for the simple reason that there was never enough reliable data to make an informed science based judgement on. I always thought it was a knee jerk reaction that was designed to fool the sheeple while making some corporation lots of money.

  5. The Ozone Hole fraud did produce results. In 1996, the EPA banned the use of CFCs and freon. Paradoxically, the EPA also classifies ozone as a greenhouse gas. I guess the EPA must rely on the stupidity of Americans to not see the illogic of banning substances to increase atmospheric ozone, while at the same time making regulations to reduce the production of atmospheric ozone.

    • R Shearer says:

      It’s stratospheric ozone that we want and tropospheric (ground level really) ozone that we don’t want. So really, there is no inconsistency on that point.

      • So how do the CFCs know which layer to attack and deplete? Wouldn’t it make sense that they would deplete the tropospheric ozone first (the ozone we don’t want, nearest the ground)? And wouldn’t the presence of a tropospheric ozone layer negate the negative effects from a stratospheric ozone hole? Is ozone good or bad? Obviously, like the other “greenhouse gas”, CO2, mankind would die without it. I don’t believe the EPA has explained their strategy. They just make regulations, and you will follow them whether they make sense or not.

        • US ozone air quality was at 0.1 ppm in 1980, 0.08 in 1996 when CFCs were banned, and at about 0.07 in 2015. Although the trend is decreasing, there was no appreciable change in the trend when CFCs were banned. Why didn’t ozone air content go up at that time? Did CFCs go right through the troposphere without attacking ozone, but then widen the stratospheric hole? This is voodoo science.

          • richard verney says:

            As I commented above, CFCs are very heavy.

            Does this property make it difficult for them to bypass the troposphere and favour the stratosphere?

        • Robertv says:

          CFCs are four times denser than air, so there was a transport question – how did they get to 15 km above the surface? The answer is they didn’t. The active portion, that is the part that destroys ozone, is the first ‘C’ – or chlorine. It is part of a growing family of Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS). In a laboratory, a chemical is placed in a chamber with ozone. If the ozone is destroyed, then the chemical is designated an ODS and banned.

          • richard verney says:

            I have been making this point above. Working from the top down, I didn’t see your comment in time.

            I consider that there may well be a transport problem. Of course, as usual, the required good quality data sets do not exist, so nothing can be scientifically validated.

  6. dennisambler says:

    For some history on this and the Montreal Protocol, the trojan horse for Kyoto, now morphed into the Paris Accord, check out:

    “Another Day Another Dollar – CFC’s And The UN”

  7. lance says:

    I remember heading to the High Arctic to start my work for Environment Canada, doing Radiosonde balloon work. I stopped in Resolute on my way north, and talking to the boys who were ‘just’ starting to monitor the ozone level, and recall them saying that they had only being doing it for a short while (this was back in 1979), so of course with no prior data, when you measure very little to start…easy to draw conclusions and throw up any scare story you want.

    • R Shearer says:

      It’s an experiment in progress. CFCs are long-lived in the atmosphere, so it’s going to be a long time before definite conclusions can be made (about the science). They generally peaked about 20 years ago and have only declined by about 10% or so since, but probably it’s an academic exercise only.

  8. Dan Kurt says:

    Read G.M.B. Dobson’s, inventor of the Dobson spectrophotometer, a ground-based instrument for measuring atmospheric ozone, paper from March 1968 in Applied Optics (v. 7, n. 3) “Forty Years’ Research on Atmospheric Ozone at Oxford: A History.” Dobson during the 1950’s International Geophysical Year of ’57-’58 measured the ozone above Antartica and discovered the ozone anomaly later called the “ozone hole” during the months of darkness: no uv to form ozone. I had a letter published in Sky & Telescope in the ’80s pointing this out during the hysteria leading up to the Freon ban. Idiocy has no bounds.

    Dan Kurt

  9. Steve Case says:

    Testing – one two three

  10. Bart says:

    The case for the ozone hole is much stronger than the case for AGW. But then, the case for just about anything is stronger than the case for AGW, which is essentially nonexistent.

    It is still a fact that the growth in the ozone hole decelerated significantly after the Montreal protocol was instituted, and CFC production declined precipitously.

    I would argue that the plot at the top of this page

    is a bit of a cherry pick that does not show the full extent of the variation, and its connection to the timing of the CFC ban. However, for all I know, the first plot I provided above may suffer the same problem – how did the hole vary prior to 1980, and is the variation simply natural? But, there really are no data before this date, so whether this was a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc remains to be seen.

    It would be a shame if the science behind the ozone hole was correct, but it became suspect due to the AGW shenanigans. But then, that holds across the board. The eventual collapse of the global warming narrative will unleash all sorts of pseudoscientific assaults against prevailing paradigms. Maybe that will be a good thing, in the long run. But, I foresee there will much harm done, as well.

  11. The other Goddard keeps images of ozone, plus compressed videos where I cannot make out any difference whatsoever between when I was a sinner in damnation or after men with guns and laws saved the Earth:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.