The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
The claim was that the ozone hole was going to cause skin cancer in Australia by allowing too much ultra-violet light through the atmosphere.
27 Jul 1989, 7 – Marshfield News-Herald at Newspapers.com
There are lots of problems with this claim.
First problem is that the ozone hole never extends beyond Antarctica, and only appears in the winter, when there isn’t any sunlight. Ozone is created in the upper atmosphere by sunlight. You can’t get skin cancer from sunlight during times when the sun isn’t shining. As soon as the sun comes back out over Antarctica, the ozone hole disappears. How are people in Australia going to get skin cancer from an ozone hole thousands of miles away during winter when the sun is low in the sky?
Second problem is that the ozone hole size varies tremendously from year to year, despite relatively steady levels of CFC’s in the atmosphere. It is quite clear that CFC’s are not the controlling factor.
Climate Prediction Center – Stratosphere: SBUV-2 Total Ozone – Ozone Hole
Just like the global warming scam, the ozone hole scam was another opportunity for government to tax and control, and another opportunity for scientists to imagine themselves saving the planet.
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
H. L. Mencken
The Montreal Protocol was a Trojan Horse for the Kyoto Protocol, look how global action, (global insanity) can save the world.
check out Another Day Another Dollar – CFC’s And The UN
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/science-papers/originals/another-day-another-dollar
Tony – “You can get skin cancer from sunlight during times when the sun isn’t shining.”
Is this a typo or sarcasm?
fixed it, thanks!
Pure innocuousness .
utter nonsense.
The hole is under control thanks to prompt action by world governments.
See also ‘CO2’
Me Griff, wrong again…
Crutzen, Molina, and Rowland won the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their “proof” that CFCs cause the ozone hole in Antarctica.
In 2007 however, Rex showed that one of the key reaction rates used by Crutzen et al. was off by a factor of ten. As a Nature article explains:
“The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago2 (see graphic). If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.”
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html
Read the paper, “The hole in the ozone fraud. One of the things this paper touches on is the fact that the hole in the ozone off of Argentina was there decades before air conditioning was invented.
The paper also touches on the fact that the oceans of the world expel more hydrocarbons in one day than all of the countries of the world. Have you ever heard of the “mini ice age? It started in about the 800’s and lasted until the 1880’s. The coldest period was between the 16th-17th centuries. The average global temp. was 2-3 degrees F than they are today. The little ice age ended in the latter of the 19th century or in the early 20th century. Right now the Atlantic Ocean is 6-14 degrees F cooler than 500 years ago. Try reading the IPCC fourth assessment report of 2007.
I’m still very suspicious of the claims about ozone destruction and its causes; it’s suspicious to me how suddenly it seemingly appeared, at a time well after CFC use was commonplace.
That said, I did a little Googling, and it seems that the results Rex was basing his reaction on were reversed a couple of years later by Lin, who used mass spectrometry to insure he was seeing results only from CL2O2: https://www.nature.com/news/2009/090507/full/news.2009.456.html
OTOH, their methodology seems a little second-order, since they’re using absorption cross-sections and “reference molecules” to calibrate their system and decide how much of the Cl2O2 has been affected by the irradiation. They also tested at just two specific wavelengths “available in the stratosphere.” – Which begs many questions such as how other wavelengths are absorbed, what the distribution of wavelengths is, etc, etc.
At this point, I’d say that we have two conflicting sets of data, one that may be inaccurate due to trace-level contamination, the other of which seems to depend heavily on a calibration method that I’d need to read a lot more about to have confidence in and that also may or may not correlate with real-world conditions.
I remain suspicious of the whole ozone-hole scare, but it does seem like the science is equivocal on either side.
Big Brother Brown Shirt.
There has been no change in the average size of the ozone hole since CFC’s were banned.
@tonyheller, not according to NASA scientists. Their findings show a reducing ozone hole and they say the ozone is expected to be completely healed by 2050-2080.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/nasa-study-first-direct-proof-of-ozone-hole-recovery-due-to-chemicals-ban
You can’t be serious.
Griff delivers another fact filled rebuttal. NOT! DuPont loves credulous naifs like Griff all the way to the bank.
Dupont was the victim of bad science.
Great one, Tony. I’ve never seen it put so succinctly, and exactly what I always thought.
Tony, you always bring up issues that I thought were “settled science” and then completely flip my understanding on its head – thank you!
I found this sentence interesting “Second problem is that the ozone hole size varies tremendously from year to year, despite relatively steady levels of CFC’s in the atmosphere.” However, in your July 18, 2017 post you said “and the one over Antarctica has not changed in size since the CFC ban was implemented.”
Are these two sentences consistent? It’s amazing how little is out on the web on this topic (ozone scam)!
The average size hasn’t changed.
feathers,
There is plenty out there about man made global warming and that’s the biggest hoax of all time.
The press is not going to report that the ozone hole has not changed in size since CFC’s were put in the naughty basket – it is just not sensational and will not sell papers.
I disagree. Climate Change is the greatest scientific fraud of all time. The ozone hole comes a distant second.
No question.
The 396 W/m^2 upwelling and net 333 W/m^2 GHG energy loop as shown on the attached K-T power flux balance diagram (Figure 10 Trenberth et al 2011jcli24) is calculated using the S-B equation with an assumed emissivity of 1.0 and an average surface temperature of 16 C, 289 K. Because of the conductive/convective/advective/latent heat participating processes of the atmospheric molecules the actual and correct radiative emissivity is about 0.16, i.e. 63/396.
This GHG energy loop is an inappropriate calculation with zero physical reality.
Without this energy loop the radiative greenhouse effect theory fails.
Without RGHE man-caused climate change does not exist.
It’s called “science.”
Don’t be frightened, spit out the Kool-Aid and give it a try.
The ozone hole was first seen by Dobson in the mid 1950’s. We have no idea how long it was there before first measured.
This is the most important point. Nobody ever measured ozone over the south pole before then, so nobody knows if there is even *supposed to be* any ozone there. It’s probably too cold there for the reaction
3 O2 + sunlight ———–> 2 O3
3 O2 + M (any surface) + UV (mostly sunlight, but not solely) 2 O3
Remember, it goes both ways.
I remember being taught all about the ozone layer hole in elementary school and how our future was looking very bleak because of it around 1990. After being so confused as to why we still exist decades after the many end date predictions passed from several politicians and “scientists,” I had to pick up a couple books on this subject. “First global revolution” and “report from iron mountain.” Not many folks out there understand why the gov NEEDS these various boogeymen like global cooling, global warming, holes in the ozone, FF terrorist attacks, FF shootings, FF acts of war, and more to stay relevant. Truth is, we now have all of the resources that can make gov / banking systems obsolete. They’ll do ANTHING up to and including mass murder to convince us that we need them.
Countries still producing CFC’s and no drastic change to the ozone layer. I’m a refrigeration mechanic so good for business, but what a scam. We’ll look back at this CO2 scare in 20 years and realize what a scam it was, I just hope we’re not living in grass huts and starving when we look back.
I can easily prove the ozone hole is a natural phenomena that been going on for millions of years.
Yes, I totally agree. I am so angered that the government was behind it. I wish that my college teachers will realize that climate change is fake.
YOU CANT PROVE ANYTHING IF IT HAS BEEN GOING ON MILLIONS OF YEARS.