Galactic Cosmic Rays May Be Responsible For The Antarctic Ozone Hole

NOTE: It has been pointed out to me by an email from a regular WUWT reader that some people get a different conclusion from the headline other than what I was thinking of.  So, for those who didn’t read the paper fully to the conclusion, I offer this clarification:

In the conclusions of the paper here (PDF) there is this:

Thus, the above facts (1)–(5) force one to conclude that the CR-driven electron-induced reaction is the dominant mechanism for causing the polar O3 hole.

(CR stands for Cosmic Rays) The above conclusion is what I based my title on.  The titled also merited a “may be” caveat until replication of the work is done by another scientist. Anyone reaching a different conclusion, such as one of CFC’s not being involved, is erroneous. Cosmic Rays are drivers (or some may say a catalyst) of a complex reaction involving CFC’s, resulting in ozone ‘O3‘ depletion, and that is what is referred to in the conclusion.

While I had considered changing the headline to make it clearer for those who don’t read scientific papers completely, substituting the word “responsible” with “a Catalyst”, doing so would break web links already in place, and that would appear to some that the article had been removed, when that would not be the case.

Comments are normally closed automatically after 60 days, but I’m opening them up again for a short period since there has been a change to the article.

- Anthony


The Antarctic Ozone Hole is said to be caused only by Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s). According to this new study, perhaps not. (h/t to John F. Hultquist)

The Antarctic Ozone Hole Source: NASA Goddard

The Antarctic Ozone Hole. Click for larger image. Source: NASA Goddard

Here is a new paper of interest just published in Physical Review Letters.

Correlation between Cosmic Rays and Ozone Depletion

Q.-B. Lu
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada

Abstract:

This Letter reports reliable satellite data in the period of 1980–2007 covering two full 11-yr cosmic ray (CR) cycles, clearly showing the correlation between CRs and ozone depletion, especially the polar ozone loss (hole) over Antarctica. The results provide strong evidence of the physical mechanism that the CR driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules plays the dominant role in causing the ozone hole. Moreover, this mechanism predicts one of the severest ozone losses in 2008–2009 and probably another large hole around 2019–2020, according to the 11-yr CR cycle.

ozone_gcm_lu

Percentage variations of CR flux (solid magenta line) and annual mean total O3 measured at two Antarctic stations, Faraday/Vernadsky (in red and green).

Excerpts from the paper:

There is interest in studying the effects of galactic cosmic rays (CRs) on Earth’s climate and environment, particularly on global cloud cover in low atmosphere (3 km) and ozone depletion in the stratosphere. The former has led to a different scenario for global warming, while the latter has provided an unrecognized mechanism for the formation of the O3 hole. The discovery of the CR-cloud correlation by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen has motivated the experiments to investigate the physical mechanism for the correlation. In contrast, the CR-driven electron reaction mechanism for  O3 depletion was first unexpectedly revealed from laboratory measurements by Lu and Madey. Then the evidence of the correlation between CRs, chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) dissociation, and O3 loss was found from satellite data by Lu and Sanche: the O3 hole is exactly located in the polar stratosphere and at the altitude of 18 km where the CR ionization shows a maximum.

CRs are the only electron source in the stratosphere, while halogen(Cl, Br)-containing molecules are long known to have extremely large cross sections of dissociative attachments of low-energy electrons. The latter reaction will be greatly enhanced when halogenated molecules are adsorbed or buried at the surfaces of polar molecular ice, relevant to polar stratospheric cloud (PSC) ice in the winter polar stratosphere, as firstly discovered by Lu and Madey and subsequently confirmed by others in experiments and theoretical calculations.

Read the complete paper here (PDF)

About these ads

114 thoughts on “Galactic Cosmic Rays May Be Responsible For The Antarctic Ozone Hole

  1. Look, we don’t need fancy explanations for the ozone hole; Ozone is produced by sunlightin the stratosphere: In the Antarctic winter there is no sunlight so Ozone is no longer created; the remaining Ozone, being naturally unstable, has a half life and steadily diminishes until the sun comes back.
    That’s it! No need for CFCs no need for cosmic rays. If this is too simple tell me what I’m missing.

  2. But, but, Montreal 1972 assured us that the evil CFC’s were to blame and if we got rid of them, then all would be allright. Tell us it ain’t so.

    Seriously, this is not good news for those who live under the Ozone Hole or its extremities.

  3. KimW (12:19:46) :

    Too bad we have phased out or are in the process of phasing out some of the best, most compressible synthetic refrigerants ever developed….and all due to the Montreal protocol. Think about the billions of dollars wasted on upgrading refrigeration equipment and retrofitting of refrigerants…and for what?

    Maybe we can avoid this type of boondoggle with AGW…somehow I doubt it though.

  4. “KimW (12:19:46) :

    But, but, Montreal 1972 assured us that the evil CFC’s were to blame ”

    You tell them Kim. Those crazy econuts were spreading scares about the ozone hole DECADES before it was discovered……

  5. Anthony

    How do we contact you with potential stories as I forwarded this to you a week ago?

    My main comment would be that the explanation is plausible, but we have no way of knowing whether or not there has always been an ozone hole, and if the current one is larger or smaller than normal.

    Judging by the correspondence I have had with various top scientists in this field they don’t really know either, as they have been focused so much on using data that assumes the exisring theory is correct. Sound familiar?

    Whatever happened to the good old scientific belief encapsulated in the motto of the Royal Society ‘Nobody’s word is final.’

    Tonyb

  6. KimW (12:19:46) :

    One more thing….it’s interesting that Dr. Dobson discovered the ozone hole in 1956–long before the advent of ubiquitous mechanical refrigeration and air conditioning. He invented the ground-based instrument to measure atmospheric ozone and even discovered the seasonal variation in ozone concentrations, now called “recovery”.

    http://www.junkscience.com/Ozone/ozone_seasonal.html

  7. KimW (12:19:46) :

    Seriously, this is not good news for those who live under the Ozone Hole or its extremities.

    Not worth worrying about …..Only a bunch of New Zealanders…. ;)

  8. Isn’t the artice claiming that cosmic rays enhance the CFC caused loss to the ozone? “CR driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules plays the dominant role in causing the ozone
    hole.”.

    Maybe “Galactic Cosmic Ray Enhancement of CFC Caused Damage May Be Responsible For The Antarctic Ozone Hole” would be a better title.

  9. I’m 60 years old.

    I was in primary school in 1954.

    I remember my primary school headmistress teaching our class that Ozone was produced by the action of SUNLIGHT (ie (she meant) solar radiation) on our atmosphere.

    No surprise, then, that ozone depletion is observed at the polar extremities.

    She must have got this from somewhere!!!!

    Does nobody else have any similar recollection?

  10. Ah yes…. and the correlation to surface temperature is:

    Quote:
    At the same time, less lower stratospheric ozone would be available to trap outgoing infrared radiation from the surface and the lower atmosphere. The net effect is calculated to be a slight cooling at the surface, but a more significant cooling in the lower stratosphere. Scientists remain uncertain about the impact this changing stratospheric temperature profile will have.

    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/the-science-of-ozone.html

    Would this be another climate feedback related to cosmic rays, where increased rays result in cooler temperatures??

    Another feedback not in current climate models?

  11. Being a simple-and humble-red neck, I am confused.

    The abstract seems to imply that the CGRs cause the various halogenated hydrocarbons (refrigerants) to disassociate and the free radicals cause the loss of the ozone.

    That would mean that both the CGRs and halogenated hydrocarbons are required.

    Am I missing something??

    Regards,

    Steamboat Jack

  12. About 20 years ago I heard a rumor, and I believe it is a rumor but I think it is an interesting one. It goes like this. DuPont’s CFC patent was going to expire and they were going to losing a large market share of the refrigerant market. Along comes the hole in the ozone theory and they covertly jump on it while patenting the next refrigerant R22 or R32 or something like that. It all worked out for them. Didn’t help me much when I was work on my boats fish hold refrigerant which was R12. But that’s just a rumor too. I didn’t buy the CFC/Ozone connect then just like I don’t buy the AGW theory now. The science is way to young for either one to start making trillion dollars mistakes.

  13. I have always had a few problems with this whole CFC/Ozone thing. One problem was that it was said it would take some 50 years for the impact of Montreal to be realized because it took that long for the CFCs to get up to that level.

    There are two problems with that. One is that it would suppose, then, that the ozone hole noticed in the 1980’s was the result of CFCs released in the 1930’s of which as far as I know, there weren’t any. Secondly, air is transported from ground level to 20Km altitude each and every day by storms. A tropical cyclone takes an absolutely fantastic amount of air to very high altitude. Other storms do as well. The notion that it takes air that long to get to that altitude always seems somewhat preposterous to me. Anything that gets well-mixed into the lower atmosphere will be transported up to about 20km fairly easily by storms.

    Then there is this whole notion that the CFC source of ozone degradation was the result of a calculation that apparently amplified the impact of the CFCs by an order of magnitude. I can’t find that item right now, but I believe it was published in the past couple of years.

    More interestingly is the discovery that volcanoes inject something like 5 times as much chlorine into the upper atmosphere as exists in CFCs. Are there any volcanoes near the polar regions? (rhetorical question, really).

    There should be a way to test all of this. Ozone holes are apparently largest when the circumpolar jet is exceptionally strong keeping air better “sequestered” at the poles and prevented from mixing with the rest of the atmosphere. When the jet is strong, the upper atmosphere at the poles is exceptionally strong. So we should see a correlation between temperature and size of the ozone depletion area.

    In long periods of increased cosmic rays, the impact should be felt at both poles if these rays are a prime candidate for ozone destruction. So what I would expect to see is something that looks like this:

    During periods of about equal cosmic ray counts, the size of the ozone hole should track well with temperature of the upper atmosphere in winter. Periods of increased cosmic rays would show an increase in ozone destruction and a larger depletion area than is experienced during periods with equal temperatures but lower cosmic ray counts. So lets say you have 10 years. 5 of them low cosmic ray counts and 5 high. In years with low counts, size of the depletion area should be about the same in years with about the same temperatures aloft. In years with higher ray counts, the depletion area would increase over the area for low count years with the same temperature aloft.

  14. “When the jet is strong, the upper atmosphere at the poles is exceptionally strong. ”

    OOps, meant “When the jet is strong, the upper atmosphere at the poles is exceptionally *cold*”

  15. Well I didn’t think it was my armpit spray.
    I want another halon fire extinguisher. The best on the market for cockpit blazes. How many lives have been lost due to another misguided ‘it must be us’ theory?

  16. The Canadian Discovery channel program “Daily Planet” had an item just yesterday that claimed the ozone hole is gone! It was a very short piece with no explanations other than that we can “pat ourselves on the back” for such a feat.

    I’ll see if I can find a link.

  17. Two observations: First, It was more justifiable to ban Freon (etc.) back in the 70s that it is to penalize CO2 now, because the cost to do so was relatively low, the danger was great, and the margin of error, timewise, was short.

    Second: I’ve suspected that Hansen (and others) modeled their CO2=warming thesis on the template of the Freon=ozone hole template. If a natural cause is discovered for the ozone hole, that discovery will, or should, reverse the parallel-controversy precedent that they and many in the public are relying on to bolster the credibility of the CAGW position.

    Third, if it turns out, a few years down the road, that the Freon connection is thoroughly debunked, this can be used by our side as a stick with which to belabor the alarmists.

  18. “David Ermer (13:11:07) :
    Maybe “Galactic Cosmic Ray Enhancement of CFC Caused Damage May Be Responsible For The Antarctic Ozone Hole” would be a better title.”

    Hats off to you sir. You managed to read the article before going in all guns blazing. :)

  19. KimW,

    as Barrie Sellers mentioned, the ozone hole exists during the antarctic winter and early spring, which is also when the sun is mostly below the horizon. In the areas where there is overlap, that is, the sun does get above the horizon and the ozone hole is still above them, the direct sunlight is coming in at a low angle where it is still being filtered by atmosphere outside of the hole. The increased UV is oversold.

    Here are some pictures to hopefully clarify what I am trying to get across:

    http://www.jamesriser.com/JamesRiser/Science/seasons/seasons2.htm

  20. “”” TonyB (12:36:07) :

    Anthony

    How do we contact you with potential stories as I forwarded this to you a week ago?

    My main comment would be that the explanation is plausible, but we have no way of knowing whether or not there has always been an ozone hole, and if the current one is larger or smaller than normal. “””

    There have always been ozone holes; they just weren’t called that until somebody called them that, after looking and finding one; “lookie there I do believe that’s an ozone hole !”

    One can find numeraous references in typically Optical texts and handbooks in chapters dealing with “light sources” and in particular “natural light sources” such as the sun (moon and stars)

    Back in the 40s-50s there was much work done on the ground level and high altitude solar spectrum. For one, the Air Force was keenly interested in the high altitude EM radiation hazards to pilots (or plane crews).

    It is quite common to find references to the sun as a light source with notations that the sun is known to have seasonal and random variations in “color Temperature”, as een from the ground; and these references often cite a belief in variations in the high energy (UV) end of the solar spectrum as a proximate cause for solar color temperature variations; and the seasonal effect is a distinct clue to variations in ground level solar radiation due to appearance and disappearnace of ozone holes.

    Now actually, if you look at the air mass one solar spectrum you can see that ozone is credited with taking a big chunk out of the peak of the solar spectrum evn out to the blue green region; so clearly ozone variations can be and are a cause of seasonal changes in apparent color temperature of the sun as a natural light source.

    It was likely sometime during the IGY in 1957/58 when somebody; most likely a Frenchman (ofr unknown reasons); had nothing better to do with his time or his research grant so he looked for an ozone hole and there it was; and he named it on the spot; and of course imbued it with a legacy that said no such thing ever existed before.

    But I’m believer in the sun maketh, and the sun taketh away.

    Solar UV of 200 nm or less (vaccuum UV) breaks up molecular Oxygen (can’t recall the eV requirement for that cleavage).
    Atomic Oxygen is too reactive to hang around long enough to get two of them back together (remember that in the cleavage, the two oxygen atoms take off in opposite directions in CM space; and they never see each other again. So each O latches onto the next O2 it encounters, and makes a threesome out of it; which however is not too stable but a damn side more stable than O is

    I don’t think you can ever not have ozone if you have O2 and solar vaccuum UV. If you have both of those at any altitude, you will get atomic O and it will not put up with that conditions so you will get ozone; CFCs or no.

    George

    But absent sunlight; expect to get an ozone hole.

  21. Didn’t someone get a Nobel prize for elucidating the role of ice crystals in ozone depletion? Was that just a hypothesis and this new finding is of a more dominant cause? That would be news. Reporters should be calling up their friendly scientific news source for quotes.

  22. A BIG issue on the Ozone Hole is, why isn’t there one over the North Pole????

    We have the same amount of time without direct sunlight. We have pretty much the same atmospheric constituents during the summers. So why no northern hole??

    The theory I find reasonable is the southern circumpolar circulation. That is, due to the land sea configuration at the south pole there are winds which DO tend to partition the atmospheric exchange so the loss of ozone can not be replaced with ozone from areas with direct sunlight. This is obviously not a feature of the north pole.

    This post adds another possibility. North and South Pole opposite polarities. Do the magnetic fields bias the GCR’s, or even solar particles, to add to this situation??

  23. One might ask why it is that swimming pool chloronation is not a worse hazard to the ozone layer than CFCs ever thought of being.

    Well unlike CFCs which are very stable; chlorine or other halogens are very reactive, so swimming pool chlorine gets reacted into something else befre it ever makes it up into the stratosphere.

    On the other hand CFCs are highly stable because of the Fluorine; which is hell on wheels in the free state.

    So CFCs can make it up into the stratosphere, where ultimately there’s a solar UV photon of enough energy to satisfy anybody, including CFC molecules; and thats’ when they get broken down to release the chlorine.

    The fluorine part being even more reactive likely grabs something else before it finds an ozone molecule. Well that’s my story and I’m sticking to it. But basically I think it the sun that giveth, and then taketh away.

    George

  24. The ozone concentration in the graph varies by a whole +/- 9% . Some hole!

    This is of course the long term variability not the seasonal one which seems to well established as being due to lack of sunlight in the winter and the fact that ozone is unstable with the decay being helped by naturally occurring chlorine and bromine.

    I’m with crosspatch on the 50 years thing. The idea is that the results won’t be visible (or not) until the perps are all dead or in nursing homes.

    tallbloke asks about lives lost? Try Columbia for starters. CFCs were a part of urethane foam blowing processes. Then the CFCs were removed and the great 1990’s foam disaster happened. The replacement foams either crumbled to nothing or kept expanding which was disastrous for people constructing coolrooms, various refrigerators(I owned one) and even composite aircraft propellers with foam cores.(direct experience of that one also).

    Note also the CFCs were so non toxic that you had to displace enough oxygen to harm humans. The replacements can be fatal in concentrations as low as 4000ppm.

  25. Barrl L,

    Thanks for the tip and link to its source from Union of Concerned Scientists as pasted below. I rarely agree wito UCS, but you and they may be onto something here. Would it be unscientific to ask whether fewer sunspots affect the interrelationships between Earth’s and Sun’s magnetic fields, and if fewer sunspots lead to a cooler Earth because more cosmic rays destroy more ozone, particularly near Earth’s magnetic poles?
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    A weakened ozone layer may also cause climatological effects. The stratosphere warms with altitude because the splitting of stratospheric ozone is caused by ultraviolet photons, which contain much more energy than that required to break the O-O2 bond. This extra energy is converted to heat. Less stratospheric ozone means less local heating, but it also means that more ultraviolet light is transmitted to heat the lower atmosphere and the earth’s surface.

    At the same time, less lower stratospheric ozone would be available to trap outgoing infrared radiation from the surface and the lower atmosphere. The net effect is calculated to be a slight cooling at the surface, but a more significant cooling in the lower stratosphere. Scientists remain uncertain about the impact this changing stratospheric temperature profile will have.

  26. The sun’s UV-A and UV-B produce and destroy ozone. The size of the ozone hole depends on the balance of the two coming from the sun, it varies and so does the hole.
    Been known for a long time.

    The CFC argument was proved false long ago by the very same people that proposed it in the first place. They actually did the experiments. When asked why they hadn’t done the experiments at the time, they said “we didn’t think we needed to”. Science at it’s best. Their paper is in the literature.

  27. Barrie Sellers has it right.

    The “OZONE DONUT” is caused by the six months of darkness at the poles.

    Just below the arctic circles (66.56756° North or South of the Equator) you get six months of sunsets, so there is a very high concentration of ozone.

    The next time you see a plot of the ozone hole, look closely at the very high concentration of ozone around it’s perimeter.

    This is why I have always called this the “OZONE DONUT.”

  28. Steve of GBrownLand (13:12:32) : recollections

    At some point I learned it was the chemical with the odd smell caused by electrical discharges – lightening or large electircal motors. That would have been later than primary school.
    I don’t think my primary school teachers knew of ozone.

    Jon Jewett (13:21:33) : . . . confused

    Someone will correct me if I’m wrong – I’m not a chemist.

    halogen = Any of a group of five chemically related nonmetallic elements including fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, and astatine. These elements are highly reactive and occur in naturally produced molecules and get into the atmosphere including the stratosphere.

    chlorofluorocarbons = Freon = CF2Cl2 = industrially produced chemical
    I think Freon (the refrigerant) is not the only chlorofluorocarbon but it is the one of interest in this context.

    There are sufficient naturally occurring halogen compounds that size of the ozone “hole” is not dependent on the synthetic (human produced) one.
    So humans are not involved but when the Sun is “quiet” GCRs enter the stratosphere and cause the reactions that produce the ozone hole.

  29. kuhnkat (14:01:33) : said

    “A BIG issue on the Ozone Hole is, why isn’t there one over the North Pole????”

    I seem to recall being told that ironically there was such a big hole over the antarctic because it had been unusually cold -temperature being a pre-requisite. Similarly I was told there wasn’t one in the Arctic as it wasn’t cold eough. I don’t know if that is true or whether one might appear there if things continue to cool down

    TonyB

  30. Steve of GBrownLand (13:12:32) :
    “I’m 60 years old.
    I was in primary school in 1954.
    I remember my primary school headmistress teaching our class that Ozone was produced by the action of SUNLIGHT (ie (she meant) solar radiation) on our atmosphere.”
    I am 68…what did those “Gores” with science?..it would be interesting to know precisely when it all began…They even managed to change the “water cycle”, remember?, in the good all days the sun used to heat sea water to produce vapour, this clouds, clouds rain, and so on..
    Where and when did it happen?, who did it?

  31. “”” bob (14:25:27) :

    Barrl L,

    Thanks for the tip and link to its source from Union of Concerned Scientists as pasted below. I rarely agree wito UCS, but you and they may be onto something here. Would it be unscientific to ask whether fewer sunspots affect the interrelationships between Earth’s and Sun’s magnetic fields, and if fewer sunspots lead to a cooler Earth because more cosmic rays destroy more ozone, particularly near Earth’s magnetic poles? “””

    Well I stay away from the UCS; which is really a euphemism for something else. Outfits with weird made up names usually are other than what they seem.

    But back to your question: “Would it be unscientific to ask ”

    It is never unscientific to ask; damn silly to not ask in my book.

    As I like to say; “Ignorance is not a disease; we are all born with it. But stupidity has to be taught, and there are plenty who are willing and able to teach it. ”

    So never be afraid or ashamed to ask; that’s one good way to get smart.

    But as to ozone and Cosmic Rays; Magnetic fields etc. I believe (and I am not alone) that the magnetic fields in the vicinity of the solar system, either of earth or sun origin or other, tend to affect the path’s of cosmic ray primaries and other charged particles including those from the sun. The lower energy particles entering earth vicinity can lock onto the earth magnetic field; specifically they spiral around the magnetic field lines, and travel in the general direction of one of the earth magnetic poles. Which pole just depends on the initial trajectory of the pcharged particle.

    So if near earth magnetic fields are strong, CRs are steered away from the middle of the earth (equatorial regions) and tend to selectively clobber the upper atmosphere in the general vicinity of the magnetic poles which tend to be cold polar regions.

    These charged particles striking upper atmopshere gases, create showers of secondary charged particles, and these tracks can become nucleation sites for water droplets to form out of water vapor. Water tends to condense on any surface or strange thing in the atmosphere; including those new bacteria that those Indian Scientists just discovered.

    Now most of the water vapor in the atmosphere is in the more tropical warmer equatorial regions; so cosmic ray showers in the tropics can encourage cloud formations. But if CRs are steered away from the equatorial moist regions to the colder drier polar regions; well there isn’t a lot of water vapor to form much in the way of clouds.

    So generally you can say that with strong near earth magnetic fields we get less cloud formation on earth so the albedo gets a little lower, and the ground level insolation gets a bit higher, because of fewer absorbing clouds. Note that even if the TSI never changed one iota during a solar sunspot cycle; the magnetic field changes that accompany the sunspot cycles would alter the Cosmic ray patterns, and so have a significant effect on earth warming and climate; so it isn’t the TSI it’s the water and the CRs that react to the sunspot cycles.

    Something along those lines is the thesis put forward by Hendrik Svensmark et al; and I have to say I find the basic process to be quite compelling.

    Anything that promotes cloud formation; such as the ash and aerosols from angry Alaskan Volcanoes, will tend to cool the earth because of lower ground level insolation.

    Now what about that stratospheric ozone (or wherever that stuff is).

    Well ozone has a stron absorption band in the 9-10 micron infra-red region; and that happens to be right at the peak of the earth surface mean temp thermal IR radiation (10.1 microns at 288 K.)

    So the protective ozone layer is also an upper atmosphere warming GHG because of that 9-10 micron absorption band.

    In the polar regions where ozone holes tend to occur at night (winter) the surface temperatures are much colder so the emitted IR radiation tends to be shifted to a longer wavelength as far as 15 microns in the coldest places; so that has the effect of reducing the effect of ozone absorption at the poles anyway, because the 10 micron band is now on the short side of the IR spectrum (Wiens Displacement Law) and only 25% of a Black body spectrum radiation is below the peak wavelength. Now the earth emissions are not truly BB anyway; but they are bounded by the BB spectrum,so its a good starting assumption.

    So in the polar regions we have very little earth emitted IR anyway, as little as 12 times less than in the hottest tropical deserts; so there ain’t a lot of cooling going on in the polar regions, and what littel emitted IR there is is less affected by ozone or ozone holes than it would be over a hot tropical desert; which is where the most effective cooling is going on in the heat of the noonday sun.

    Sounds a little weird; but I don’t make the rules. Way back when, somebody else noticed that hot things cool fast so we always make our car radiators nice and hot so they cool our engines effectively.

    Covering your car radiator with ice is a losing proposition and only works for as long as the ice lasts.

    So ozone does affect climate; but I think it is more of an upper atmosphere heating, than any cooling; but the Cosmetic Rays are good for us, and form lots of clouds to stop the planet from overheating.

    So long as we have the oceans, we couldn’t change the temperature of this planet much; either up or down; even if we wanted to. the oceanic evaporation/cloud/precipitation cycle simply won’t let that happen.

    Besides; what temperature would you set the knob to, if you had control of the thermostat ?

    George

  32. This theory is not new. Lu and Sanche published on it at least as far back as 2001.

    For example, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 078501 (2001) ‘Effects of Cosmic Rays on Atmospheric Chlorofluorocarbon Dissociation and Ozone Depletion’ Q.-B. Lu and L. Sanche http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v87/i7/e078501

    By my quick reading, it seems that what Lu and Sanche have suggested is that cosmic rays play a role dissociation of chlorofluorocarbons to cause the ozone hole.

    The results provide strong evidence of the physical mechanism that the [cosmic ray] driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules plays the dominant role in causing the ozone hole. The halogens are from CFCs.

    They have not said that CFCs are not implicated, or that a hole in the ozone layer never existed. Only that one part of the mechanism may involve cosmic rays. Maybe they’re right. The more recent publication seems to support their earlier work. Further research may confirm or refute this.

    In any case, the cost of stopping the release of CFCs was relatively low. Certainly hassle to refrigeration engineers and some others, but not significant within the grand scheme of the global economy.

    If only the reduction of CO2 emissions were as simple, it would be a precaution easily worth taking. Unfortunately, in comparison, the cost of changing away from a carbon-based economy will be astronomical.

  33. This article, probably posted here on WUWT, states that they don’t know what causes 60% of the depletion, but it isn’t CFC’s.
    Ozone chemistry confounds everyone
    By Chris Lee | Published: October 01, 2007 – 08:59AM CT

  34. Er, conflation of the “Ozone Hole” with “depletion”? AFAWK, the “hole” could have been there forever-indeed, since the cold conditions down there are conducive to Ozone destroying reactions but not so much their creation, concentrations of O3 down there have probably always been low relative to the rest of the world.

    Stefan, that’s rather disturbing-especially May’s talk of “respecting the facts” while endorsing Stern and AIT, which have been totally discredited by rational analysis as alarmist and continuously factually wrong, respectively.

    janama, wow! The seem to be totally clueless. Climate mitigation is a nasty beast, and climate policy a sad farce. Not to mention the hubris of the idea of “saving” the climate. For what, and from what?

  35. AndyR (12:42:06) :

    Not worth worrying about …..Only a bunch of New Zealanders…. ;)

    Andy, can I assume you are a eski toting, underarm bowling, idea stealer? :)

    Only a problem for us “fush and chups” eaters if you accept the Linear No-Threshold Theory of Radiation Carcinogenesis.

    I’m not so sure of it, I actually think avoiding sunlight exposure is far more damaging to your overall health than the health risks of a small amount of UV radiation. In any event [1] seems to show bugger all difference in our kiwiland O3 concentration compared to other places. It actually appears to be higher than some places north of the equator such as southern parts of the USA.

    Trust me it’s not something I worry about.

    [1] http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceancolor/scifocus/oceanColor/ozone.shtml

  36. The ozone hole would not be a feedback mechanism, but a loss mechanism.
    A heat relief valve.
    So if CFC’s under GCR’s are causing extra depletion, then they are cooling the Earth. Imagine that, a refrigerant cooling the Earth!
    Absolutely amazing, Anthony.
    We’re going to give Chu his pink slip and hire you instead.

  37. “So CFCs can make it up into the stratosphere, where ultimately there’s a solar UV photon of enough energy to satisfy anybody, including CFC molecules; and thats’ when they get broken down to release the chlorine.”

    But here is the problem I have with that notion … you don’t see any ozone depletion when there is sunlight present. Following that logic, you should see the greatest ozone depletion in the summer, when there is maximum sunlight breaking down the maximum number of CFC molecules to release the chlorine.

    In fact, the notion of CFCs being responsible for ozone depletion has never been observed to be true. It is a theoretical model but someone recently (I seem to recall he was from a country in Eastern Europe) showed that the calculation was incorrect and by a significant margin.

    I have also chuckled at the irony that Freon was “banned” just as DuPont’s patent on it was expiring and production of it would have gone into the public domain. People were then forced into more expensive refrigerants that still have a lot of patent life left in them.

    But the key is the incorrect calculations that brought us to this mess to begin with. See:

    “Chemists poke holes in Ozone Theory”

    Nature Vol. 499 27 September 2007

  38. George E. Smith (15:57:31) :

    . . . Besides; what temperature would you set the knob to, if you had control of the thermostat ?

    Warmer.

    /Mr Lynn

  39. Some key parts of that Nature article:

    So Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlo-
    rine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the
    strato-sphere — almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate. “This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand
    how ozone holes come into being.”

    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 …

    And that would be where, I believe, cosmic rays might come into play.

  40. I just posted on Real Climate following text, and frankly I am pretty sure they are not going to publish it:

    If I correclty understood you critisize Michaels for misusing short term data (actually cherry-picking end points) to make impression that future observations will be close to the low end of IPCC range.

    RC: “However, while it initially looks like each of the points is bolstering the case that the real world seems to be tracking the lower edge of the model curve, these points are not all independent”

    If so, why dind’t you plot graphs since 1979 where satellite measurmeents began, if you are so sensitive on procedures that cherry-pick start and end points? Just to check out whether real world really “tracks low end” or not?

    So, RSS shows 0.16 deg C per decade 1979-2009, UAH shows 0.13 deg per decade 1979-2009 and Had Crut 0.17 in the same period. Lower end of IPCC range is somewhere about 0.15 deg C per decade if I am not wrong. Now, what do you exactly think to accomplish with such a critique of Michaels? Both satellite data sets, and HadCru as well, pretty closely track lower end of IPCC range in period 1979-2009. Models predict by and large constant rate of warming, which is around 0.15 deg C in previous 30 years. What’s controversial in proejcting that rate of warming in the future? Do you think that basic IPCC science captured by models is somehow wrong? That rate of warming shouldn’t be constant?

  41. Way back when, somebody else noticed that hot things cool fast so we always make our car radiators nice and hot so they cool our engines effectively.“– George E. Smith

    I believe it’s more so that the operating temperature of the engine will be higher, giving higher efficiency…as long as nothing actually melts.

  42. The ozone hole would not be a feedback mechanism, but a loss mechanism. A heat relief valve.”–Robert Bateman (16:39:13)

    And probably not the only one, either.

  43. I recall reading somewhere that the very first time NASA measured the Antarctic Ozone in the 1950s, that they found the winter hole way back then. It wasnt considered significant at the time.
    The fact the Ozone hole has always been there – when there were no large amounts of CFCs should have made a few people think….

  44. INGSOC (13:34:02) :

    The Canadian Discovery channel program Daily Planet had an item just yesterday that claimed the ozone hole is gone! It was a very short piece with no explanations other than that we can pat ourselves on the back for such a feat.

    I have seen similar accounts, suggesting that “thankfully we stopped the use of CFC’s just in time to save our planet”

    Yeah right! .. and I have a bridge I’ll sell you (in Fargo, ND .. ;-) )

  45. I checked around about that whole idea of the Freon patent, it appears the patent ran out in the 1950’s. That bit about Freon being phased out when DuPont’s patent ran out is apparently an “urban legend” that I fell for.

  46. John H.- 55 (16:05:01) :

    I’m going to a Michales event in a couple hours and RC has a fresh thread about him.

    Sorry, a little bit OT, but John’s post prompted me to once again try browsing over to RC and checkout the top thread. I gotta tell ya, I sure find it difficult to read the posts over there. Seems they don’t really discuss the science, but rather simply slam anyone that may have an opposing view. I would really like to be able to read their stuff so as to gain additional perspective, but I just find it too difficult to stomach. I thank you all here for not being that way! Thank you!

  47. Given that the Sunspot Cycle and the Galactic Cosmic Ray Cycle are both about 11 years, is it safe to assume that they correlate negatively with each other ? That is, when the SC is at its Max, the GCR is at its Min. This would be related to the idea that the protective magnetic flow from the Sun, when at Max, keeps the GCR levels hitting the earth at a minimum, allowing for less cloud formation and therefore higher SSTs. I would assume that a plot of SST against GCR intensity would also yield a negative correlation. Any thoughts appreciated.

  48. 1. When we were thrilling to the scare story of “Nuclear Winter” we were told that the Southern Hemisphere would be a refuge because dust and radioactive debris would be generated in the Northern Hemisphere and the Trade Wind Belts would deflect the dust and slow/reduce the transfer to the S. Hemi. 2. I have never gotten an answer to the question: If sunlight creates O3 and the CFCs deplete the hight altitude O3, why doesn’t sunlight penetrate deeper into the atmosphere where there is more O and make more O3? There are stories around that the Freon swindle was indeed the template for the CO2 swindle. 3. Some years ago National Geographic had an article on Antarctica and mentioned that the volcano Erebus near the Ross sea was emitting Hydrogen Chloride by the hundreds of tons per day, right up into the Ozone Donut. 4. The Hormesis Effect makes hash of that Linear Progression to Zero bureaucratic job security swindle.

  49. George E. Smith wrote: So ozone does affect climate; but I think it is more of an upper atmosphere heating, than any cooling; but the Cosmetic Rays are good for us, and form lots of clouds to stop the planet from overheating.

    So long as we have the oceans, we couldn’t change the temperature of this planet much; either up or down; even if we wanted to. the oceanic evaporation/cloud/precipitation cycle simply won’t let that happen.

    Besides; what temperature would you set the knob to, if you had control of the thermostat ?

    George

    Fascinating description of the topic at hand. I had to save that post (the most of it not quoted here) as that is one of most lucid descriptions I have heard yet!

    ****** brilliant, enlightened narrative. Go back and read folks if you have not.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA

  50. I screwed up the quote portion with the lack of italics after the first sentence. George’s quote continues all the way down through the word “George.” :~)

  51. “why was it that it has develop a hole just now? ”

    There is no evidence that the “hole” is new. We found it the first time we looked for it. It has been there ever since. We haven’t been watching it long enough to know what is “normal”. It is another hook used to make people fearful and allow themselves to be “regulated”.

  52. crosspatch;
    I also saw that write up on the Ozone Hole by the Europeans and actually went looking for it a few weeks ago with the intention that if possible, the research should see much more exposure.
    At the time I could not find the source of article but it is really excellent to see that WUWT has now picked it up.

    From what I can gather the actual effects of the chloroflurocarbons on the ozone were never actually measured in the laboratory at the equivalent temperatures, pressures and conditions that prevail in the stratosphere where the breakdown of the ozone was supposed to occur.
    The whole political exercise of eliminating that particular type of refrigerant was based soley on the outputs of numerical models of the supposed and proposed chemical interactions that the models tossed up.
    Does this remind anybody of something!

    The resulting furore was generated by the usual suspects that can be found right at the forefront of the AGW furore with their usual hyped up screeching about a global disaster about to overtake mankind yet again for the umpteenth time.

    There is also some unconfirmed evidence that the Japanese had already identified the existence of the Antarctic Ozone Hole back in around the early 1930’s but due to the developing isolation of a militaristic Japan and the language barrier of those times this has never been confirmed.
    There is also some evidence that others had already identified the existence of this Ozone Hole but as has happened so often in science, a johnny come lately often finishes up with the credit for a significant scientific discovery.

    And just for a chuckle; The iron ore miners in the very hot Australian north west, a pretty inventive lot, often had trouble maintaining the air conditioners in their big ore carrier vechiles and in anything else on wheels in that climate.
    So when the refrigerant in their A/C’s got too low they just grabbed an LPG bottle and topped the A/C up,
    The A/C with an LPG fill ran at a lot lower pressure, lower head temperatures and were a darn sight better at cooling than DuPont’s best refrigerant so now a cheap LPG based refrigerant is becoming the A/C fill of choice around here.
    And I might add that I am becoming just a tad skeptical about the increasing number of climate phenomena that cosmic rays are supposed to be responsible for or play a part in.
    Shades of the overwhelming effects of CO2 on the climate.

  53. GK (19:01:22) :

    “I recall reading somewhere that the very first time NASA measured the Antarctic Ozone in the 1950s, that they found the winter hole way back then.”

    crosspatch (20:35:53) :

    “There is no evidence that the “hole” is new. We found it the first time we looked for it. It has been there ever since.

    My understanding is we first began measuring Ozone in 1957 and it was noticed that in the Antarctic that ozone was much lower in the spring than the summer and fall. They used a Dobson spectrophotometer and using the same equipment, it was noted in 1979 that there was substantial decreases in ozone in the early spring from the 1957 levels. The satellite data did not match the ground measurements, so the algorithm was adjusted to fix the problem, and the Ozone hole hysteria began a few years later.

    After the Montreal Protocols in 1987, Mission Accomplished, and Hansen thus began the push for the AGW hysteria in 1988 which led to the Kyoto Protocols which were not as successful, but beware of the upcoming Copenhagen meeting.

    Of course, the hole is an arbitrary definition, set at 220 Dobson Units, compared to the global average of 330 DU. There is no hole, just less ozone.

    We have no historical data on ozone levels before 1957, so we can not say if todays ozone levels in Antarcticas spring are natural or not, just that they are lower than in the 50’s when we first started measuring them.

    But attributing Ozone depletion to man is part of the New Age Philosophy (religion) where man is a sinner against Gaia and must be controlled, so true or not, it is a useful tool. Also, Dupont was well positioned to profit for the requirement that CFC’s be banned.

  54. ROM,

    Since I can’t get R12 anymore for my 1987 car, I use a product called DuraCool, which is mainly LPG with some R134. I had to replace the seals (25 cents, not a big deal), but my car cools almost as well as it did with R12, and I don’t need the extra-large condensor and higher capacity pump that an R134 conversion would require.

  55. Ouch – previous post… Duracool is not LPG and R134, I meant to type it’s LPG and mineral oil. Amazing how the fingers don’t follow orders sometimes!

  56. FREON-12 was a direct replacement for ISO-BUTANE which was outlawed by fire marshals in the late 1930’s. Dupont’s patents, the patents expired in mid 50’s and f-12 went from $5.00 per lb. to 50 cents by early 1970’s . F-134, the present replacement, is going off patent and is being phased out by law. but the chemical companies have had nothing to do with all of this. “comments from an old referman”

  57. farther comment; If i remember correctly “duracool” is a trade name for iso butane ( a 50 year old memory)

  58. “John H.- 55 (16:04:07) :

    way off topic BUT

    What is with RealClimate? Dissent is not allowed to post?”

    Not far off the truth, dissent is allowed, but only if it’s irrational and easy to refute. Little discussion of science over there, mostly snipes at WUWT, CA & Airvent, plus any other “Denialist” site.
    Still, better than Tamino & his “Closed Mind” blog.

    Now, along with AGW & Ozone depletion, another of “Mankind’s evil enviromental destruction” stories is the banning of tetra-ethyl lead as anti-knock in petrol (Gasoline for you colonials). This was supposed to be causing a reduction of IQ in children, thus was banned. I’m unaware of any follow-up research to show an increase in IQ, since the ban must be a good 20 years old in Europe now.
    Certainly no sign of any increase in IQ of the UK population.

  59. This is just what made me a “skeptic”. Back in the ’90s there were loads of environmentalist scare stories about skin cancers, animals going blind and scorched crops, all caused by the U.V. streaming through the Ozone Hole, which was of course, all the fault of Humans.
    Well I spent 3 months of field-based experimentation down in the Antarctic, investigating the effects of elevated U.V. on the two higher plants that grow on the Continental Antarctic. The received wisdom was that, as these plants were growing at the limits of their ecological range, this additional stress (U.V.) could just push them over the edge.
    Guess what? The elevated U.V. had no effect. None whatsoever.
    Needless to say no-one worries about the Ozone Hole now, having been thoroughly debunked as a hazard and the ecoMENTALists have moved on, leaving relatively few people in the Third World dead because they can’t afford the new “environmentally friendly” refrigerators to store their food safely.

    Oh yes, while I was there, it was pointed out that the Antarctic Peninsula was getting warmer (as recorded by the Base Weather Station and others). I now wonder just how much of this warming was caused by the routine removal of snow and ice from around the Base and the laying of an all-weather (and very dark-surfaced) runway?

  60. What I love is that my wife’s rescue inhaler for her asthma was recently legally switched from a CFC based propellant to an HFA one. These new HFA inhalers have caused a severe problem for a significant part of the population, and may well be responsible for deah. I know my wifes first response to the HFA “rescue” inhaler was a severe worsenin of her symptoms. Just great that the device that is supposed to help open airways can infat help to restrit them more.

    https://www.savecfcinhalers.org/

  61. The new CFC free rescue inhalers don’t work very well.
    (useless piece of crap to be accurate)

    As far as the ozone hole…

    Giant invisible penguins would sneak into your kitchen at night and suck the freon out of your refrigerator. Then they would fly to the antartic and way up into the stratoshere where they would burp it out while telling jokes that invisible penguins find funny.

    Except for the invisible part, this theory is at least as good an explanation and every bit as scientific, as the CFC’s causing ozone depletion theory was. But not fitting the data worth a darn is what environmental scare stories are great at.

  62. And just in case anyone is missing a bit of irony, the replacement for CFC’s were HFC’s, very powerful greenhouse gases that leak very easily and which are now to be officially phased out (in Europe at least) to be replaced by propane (greenfreeze) or CO2. An object lesson in where the precautionary principle can take you if you aren’t careful.

  63. Howarth (13:23:00) :

    Last year my asthma rescue inhaler went from being a “generic” brand to a premium brand. Why? My doctor told me that one of the manufacturers had developed a non-CFC version and had talked the EPA into banning the CFC laden versions, thereby regaining the patent rights to be the sole producer.

    Now really, even if all asthma sufferers had to spray constantly, how much CFC would that add to the atmosphere? There’s always a buck to be made behind everything.

  64. “What is with RealClimate? Dissent is not allowed to post?””

    Correct, it is a fundamentalist warmist site. Heresy is not tolerated.

  65. Barrie Sellers (12:15:46) :Ozone is produced by sunlightin the stratosphere: In the Antarctic winter there is no sunlight so Ozone is no longer created;[...]That’s it! No need for CFCs no need for cosmic rays. If this is too simple tell me what I’m missing.

    I’ve been watching the ozone maps here:

    http://exp-studies.tor.ec.gc.ca/e/ozone/Curr_allmap_g.htm

    And it is quite clear that it isn’t just sunshine. For example, right now the N. Pole has about twice as much ozone as the souther hemisphere (and it’s been that way over much of the winter). The north gets less sun and has more ozone? Oh, and the north has more of the CFC’s that are supposed to be destroyers of ozone too.

    This has led me to conclude that there is probably some kind of charged particle process involved. I don’t know if it is FTE’s, Birkeland currents, GCRs or what; but a simple sunshine model does not account for the distribution of ozone on the map. FTE’s refers to the ‘flux tubes’ that have recently been found to deliver charged particles to the planet and are a likely candidate. See:

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm

  66. One question I know that the solar system is tilted some 60 to 90 degrees (think of it as being on its side) to the center of the galaxy. If it turns out that the south pole is primarily pointed tward the galactic center it would stand to reason that there would be more GCR’s hitting that hemisphere. note I do not know if this is true, just throwing out speculation, and figure’d there were some who post here who might be able to confirm or deny this.

  67. George answered my question as follows:

    “….as to ozone and Cosmic Rays; Magnetic fields etc. I believe (and I am not alone) that the magnetic fields in the vicinity of the solar system, either of earth or sun origin or other, tend to affect the path’s of cosmic ray primaries and other charged particles including those from the sun. The lower energy particles entering earth vicinity can lock onto the earth magnetic field; specifically they spiral around the magnetic field lines, and travel in the general direction of one of the earth magnetic poles. Which pole just depends on the initial trajectory of the pcharged particle.

    So if near earth magnetic fields are strong, CRs are steered away from the middle of the earth (equatorial regions) and tend to selectively clobber the upper atmosphere in the general vicinity of the magnetic poles which tend to be cold polar regions.

    These charged particles striking upper atmopshere gases, create showers of secondary charged particles, and these tracks can become nucleation sites for water droplets to form out of water vapor. Water tends to condense on any surface or strange thing in the atmosphere; including those new bacteria that those Indian Scientists just discovered.

    Now most of the water vapor in the atmosphere is in the more tropical warmer equatorial regions; so cosmic ray showers in the tropics can encourage cloud formations. But if CRs are steered away from the equatorial moist regions to the colder drier polar regions; well there isn’t a lot of water vapor to form much in the way of clouds.

    So generally you can say that with strong near earth magnetic fields we get less cloud formation on earth so the albedo gets a little lower, and the ground level insolation gets a bit higher, because of fewer absorbing clouds. Note that even if the TSI never changed one iota during a solar sunspot cycle; the magnetic field changes that accompany the sunspot cycles would alter the Cosmic ray patterns, and so have a significant effect on earth warming and climate; so it isn’t the TSI it’s the water and the CRs that react to the sunspot cycles.

    Something along those lines is the thesis put forward by Hendrik Svensmark et al; and I have to say I find the basic process to be quite compelling.

    Anything that promotes cloud formation; such as the ash and aerosols from angry Alaskan Volcanoes, will tend to cool the earth because of lower ground level insolation.

    Now what about that stratospheric ozone (or wherever that stuff is).

    Well ozone has a stron absorption band in the 9-10 micron infra-red region; and that happens to be right at the peak of the earth surface mean temp thermal IR radiation (10.1 microns at 288 K.)

    So the protective ozone layer is also an upper atmosphere warming GHG because of that 9-10 micron absorption band.

    In the polar regions where ozone holes tend to occur at night (winter) the surface temperatures are much colder so the emitted IR radiation tends to be shifted to a longer wavelength as far as 15 microns in the coldest places; so that has the effect of reducing the effect of ozone absorption at the poles anyway, because the 10 micron band is now on the short side of the IR spectrum (Wiens Displacement Law) and only 25% of a Black body spectrum radiation is below the peak wavelength. Now the earth emissions are not truly BB anyway; but they are bounded by the BB spectrum,so its a good starting assumption.

    So in the polar regions we have very little earth emitted IR anyway, as little as 12 times less than in the hottest tropical deserts; so there ain’t a lot of cooling going on in the polar regions, and what littel emitted IR there is is less affected by ozone or ozone holes than it would be over a hot tropical desert; which is where the most effective cooling is going on in the heat of the noonday sun.

    Sounds a little weird; but I don’t make the rules. Way back when, somebody else noticed that hot things cool fast so we always make our car radiators nice and hot so they cool our engines effectively.

    Covering your car radiator with ice is a losing proposition and only works for as long as the ice lasts.

    So ozone does affect climate; but I think it is more of an upper atmosphere heating, than any cooling; but the Cosmetic Rays are good for us, and form lots of clouds to stop the planet from overheating.

    So long as we have the oceans, we couldn’t change the temperature of this planet much; either up or down; even if we wanted to. the oceanic evaporation/cloud/precipitation cycle simply won’t let that happen.

    Besides; what temperature would you set the knob to, if you had control of the thermostat ?

    George”

    Dear George,

    Supper and wife were waiting, so I couldn’t right then applaud your excellent answer to my question, and now I see that Chris has done so, and now I can join him. However, I copied it and pasted it above in its entirety so others who may have missed can read it as Chris suggests below. Thanks again, George.

    Bob
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    savethesharks (20:30:06) :

    George E. Smith wrote: So ozone does affect climate; but I think it is more of an upper atmosphere heating, than any cooling; but the Cosmetic Rays are good for us, and form lots of clouds to stop the planet from overheating.

    So long as we have the oceans, we couldn’t change the temperature of this planet much; either up or down; even if we wanted to. the oceanic evaporation/cloud/precipitation cycle simply won’t let that happen.

    Besides; what temperature would you set the knob to, if you had control of the thermostat ?

    George

    Fascinating description of the topic at hand. I had to save that post (the most of it not quoted here) as that is one of most lucid descriptions I have heard yet!

    ****** brilliant, enlightened narrative. Go back and read folks if you have not.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA

  68. JamesG (06:44:37) : And just in case anyone is missing a bit of irony, the replacement for CFC’s were HFC’s, very powerful greenhouse gases that leak very easily and which are now to be officially phased out (in Europe at least) to be replaced by propane (greenfreeze) or CO2.

    Oh, and don’t forget that the HFC replacement, R-134a, has shown a statistical correlation with increases in testicular cancer. Just what you want in an improved ‘safer’ product, cancer.

    Oddly enough, back when the whole R-12 is evil mantra began, I not only bought a couple of automotive garage sized tanks (that have lasted until now, though in truth I traded one to my mechanic who has given me ‘drawing rights’ if needed, while he uses the rest on ‘classic’ cars) but also developed a blend of isobutane / propane that worked fine as a ‘drop in replacement’. Got the isobutane from camp stove fuel cans with a vampire tap, turned a propane torch head into a propane valve body (filed the inside hole larger so liquid could be moved) and blended it up in empty propane torch bottles. Ran a Honda on it for a few years and a Mercedes for 1 or 2. Then decided I might as well use up my R-12 stash… To fill the bottle, it is put in an ice bath and the source is left at room temp. You can suck the old refrigerant out of dead cars the same way ;-)

    Yup, never know where well intentioned screwy mandates will lead…

    Oh, and R-22 was, IIRC, developed at the start of the Freon era as an exact drop in replacement for the older refrigerant, since it was believed to be safer, not being flammable like the old stuff… propane. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    There is a commercial blend with mostly non-flammables in it, GHG-12, that would be safer for the non-DIY crowd. IIRC the inventor started with propane / butane, then substituted R-22 for the propane, R-142b for most of the isobutane and adjusted the mix for the slight differences. GHG-12 was named for the inventor (in a more innocent time), not greenhouse gases

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-406A

    http://www.autofrost.com/peoples/ghg/ghg.html

    And finally: Is propane a GHG? I can see it now… in 10 years after shifting to propane and CO2, “they” decide you can’t have those greenhouse gasses leaking out and change the mandate… again…

    (And for the inevitable worry warts: The pint or two of flammable liquid is very small compared to the 15 gallons of flammable fuel on board the vehicle already. Nobody smokes in my cars. The odorant is still in the mix, so any leak will be just like having a propane torch in your tool box leak – detected by nose at low concentrations. Almost all leaks happen at the compressor seals anyway, under the hood in a 25 mph wind. My car does not live in an enclosed space. Eventually mechanics figured out that they needed to flush all the mineral oil then put in the ester oil so an R-134a conversion would not eat the compressor. Since they learned this, I’ve been converting to R-134a as vehicles needed work – thus this home brew mix fading from my present use into just a fond memory…)

    All to prevent the ozone hole that is most likely unrelated to Freon and strongly related to where charged particles hit the planet…

  69. Roger Knights (13:35:17) : Second: I’ve suspected that Hansen (and others) modeled their CO2=warming thesis on the template of the Freon=ozone hole template.

    I believe you are correct. They hold it up as a ‘triumph’… and state that we need to emulate that ‘success’.

    Third, if it turns out, a few years down the road, that the Freon connection is thoroughly debunked, this can be used by our side as a stick with which to belabor the alarmists.

    IMHO, you can start now. Just print out the present ozone map and ask this question:

    If it’s CFCs, why is the North Pole 2 x the ozone and WAY above ‘normal’ for the global average while the South Pole is low? Do CFC’s not go there? Are GCRs asymmetric by 50%?

    As an added item, you can print out several days charts and ask:

    The percentage shifts dramatically (20% easy, sometimes more) day to day AND spot to spot in the same hemisphere. Do the CFCs shift that much? If it takes 50 years to get that high in the air, how does the concentration change by 20% in as many hours? How is it that CO2 is a ‘well mixed gas’ but CFCs are not?

    IMHO, the correct answer is that GCRs do break down ozone but by an unclear route (and the CFC thesis is just that, a theory not yet proven) while some other particle event is creating ozone (which is why the map has such strong variations in it as we get hit with FTEs et. al. and the FTEs have a polar preference based on charge interacting with mag fields, thus the South pole ‘hole’).

    The notion that CFCs after 50 years of migrating to the upper air would not be well mixed or would have such rapidly changing patterns of activity is just wrong.

  70. Some have touched this already. My big problem with CFC/Ozone hole is how the stuff got there. We made lots of CFCs in the NH, little in the SH. The jet streams don’t allow much mixing of NH and SH air. So how did all those nasty CFC get to the Antarctic? Then there is Mt. Erebus, a nice active volcano in Antarctica, spewing lots of Ozone eating chemicals all the time. But it doesn’t count.

    Saving the planet seems to take priority over rational science. And if refrigerators became more expensive and less efficient, or space shuttles crashed, it was for the good of the planet.

    The current planet savers don’t seem to care if the economy dies in the process, along with a bunch of the folks who live on the planet. Some of the more extreme types may see that as a benefit. Sadly, I may live long enough to see it happen.

    OT, now that Spring has arrived, Colorado went from 60’s and 70’s to 12 above with a foot of snow. Some things never change.

  71. http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm05/fm05-sessions/fm05_SH22A.html

    Here are a few excerpts from (actual) data collected during a ground level SOLAR event in 2005:

    “Solar protons with very high energies are able to cause ionization in the polar atmosphere down to the middle~– lower stratosphere…. ”

    “Furthermore we have used the nighttime observations of mesospheric and stratospheric ozone made by the GOMOS instrument on board the Envisat satellite to monitor the ozone depletion in the middle atmosphere due to the January SPEs.”

    Posters note: But no mention of the actual ozone drops at this level.

    “The intense solar eruptive events in January 2005 caused atmospheric changes in the polar regions due to solar energetic particles associated with these events. Solar particles (primarily protons) produced ionizations, excitations, dissociations, and dissociative ionizations of the mesospheric background constituents, which led to the production of HOx (H, OH, and HO2) through a series of ion-molecule reactions. These odd hydrogen constituents led to depletions of ozone through catalytic reactions. The Aura MLS instrument observed substantial mesospheric increases in OH from January 17-22, 2005, along with associated decreases ozone (up to 50% between 65 and 75 km).”

    Posters note: the reductions of stratospheric ozone levels are not stated, even though the satellites were monitoring it. Curious. The catalytic reactions were due to Hydroxyl radicals? Maybe. Read the paragraph on the atmospheric electrical fields dropping to near zero. Protons + electrons =??? Note that the highest level of flaring normally occurs on the downslope of the solar cycle (correct,Leif?), when GCR’s are increasing in intensity. Sounds like a double whammy. 50% in five days – HMMM.

    Another case where the science is settled! ;-)

  72. John S (16:04:45) : In any case, the cost of stopping the release of CFCs was relatively low. Certainly hassle to refrigeration engineers and some others, but not significant within the grand scheme of the global economy.

    It has cost me, personally, well north of $2000 in A/C conversions (including one blown compressor on the Honda before the Honda mechanic figured out they needed to purge the old mineral oil AND FLUSH before putting in the ester oil and R-134a) along with about 100 hours of my life (at a minimum). Not exactly what I’d call “relatively low” cost. (I’m pretty sure it’s closer to $4000, but I can’t say for certain part of it would not have been needed anyway).

    Last loss was about 6 months ago trying to get 1 lb of R-12 for the old BMW. That was about 20 hours and $50 wasted trying an R-134a adapter kit before I finally went to my Mercedes mechanic who still had some… (The R-134a adapter fitting will NOT fit due to the hood being too near the spigot… so I’ll be into it at least another couple of hundred for a custom re-piping job at some future date…) Maybe I need to refurbish my ersatz mix kit…

    While I’m sure it’s easy to be cavalier with other peoples money, I’d rather folks didn’t do it with mine…

    Oh, and the R-134a in an R-12 system is NOT as effective at cooling, so we really ought to add something for the times the Benz (who’s AC was never stellar in Phoenix…) has left me a bit hotter than I would have been…

    BTW, replacing the cars is not an option (even ignoring cost). These are daily drivers, but also very classic. They will be maintained and driven for as long as I last. The Diesels have been known to go over 1,000,000 miles (that is not a typo One Million – I had one with 450,000 on it at one time, but my present one has only 150,000 though the wagon is at about 300,000 and still doing fine.) It is not possible to get a car like that any more. The push to lighter weight for fuel economy has led to aluminum engine Diesels and the heads give out at a couple of hundred thousand miles.

    My kid was T-boned by a very lifted F250 or F350 in a parking lot and drove home to tell me about it in one of my Mercedes (which is getting a new drivers door as I type.) Yes, built like a tank and well worth it. The Pickup driver said he didn’t see the car at all because he was lifted so high, never touched the brakes. So the corner of his bumper put all the energy into the middle of the drivers door. The only part damaged was the outside of the door and reinforcing bars and with no intrusion into the cabin. (Didn’t even break the window). I don’t want to think what would have happened in the Honda but I’m pretty sure it would have been an arm injury at the least and maybe a shoulder / back involvement with possible broken glass issues. So no, I’m not interested in a new ultralight econobox; I’ll deal with the R-12. But it is NOT cheap.

  73. LAShaffer (09:49:21)

    “Solar protons with very high energies are able to cause ionization in the polar atmosphere down to the middle~– lower stratosphere…. ”

    This is well established here are a couple of papers from Paul Crutzen who one the Nobel Prize for Ozone research.

    “The production of nitric oxide (NO) in the stratosphere during each of the solar proton events of November 1960, September 1966, and August 1972 is calculated to have been comparable to or larger than the total average annual production of NO by the action of galactic cosmic rays. It is therefore very important to consider the effect of solar proton events on the temporal and spatial distribution of ozone in the stratosphere. A study of ozone distribution after such events may be particularly important for validating photochemical-diffusion models.”

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/189/4201/457

    Large-scale reductions in the ozone content of the middle and upper stratosphere over the polar cap regions were associated with the major solar proton event of 4 August 1972. This reduction, which was determined from measurements with the backscattered ultraviolet experiment on the Nimbus 4 satellite, is interpreted as being due to the catalytic destruction of ozone by odd-nitrogen compounds (NOx) produced by the event.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/197/4306/886

    High levels of ionising radiation in the Earth’s stratosphere will lead to increased concentrations of nitrogen oxides and decreased concentrations of ozone. Changes in the surface environment will include an increased level of biologically harmful UV radiation, caused by the ozone depletion, and a decreased level of visible solar radiation, due to the presence of major enhancements in the stratospheric concentration of nitrogen dioxide. These changes are studied quantitatively, using the passage of the Solar System through a supernova remnant shell as an example. Some of the potential environmental changes are a substantial global cooling, abnormally dry conditions, a reduction in global photosynthesis and a large increase in the flux of atmospheric fixed nitrogen to the surface of the Earth. Such events might have been the cause of mass extinctions in the distant past.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v275/n5680/abs/275489a0.html

  74. maksimovich (10:47:10) :

    Thanks for posting the links, I was already aware of most of this. Maybe the scientists involved weren’t. The point was that they also seemed to be linking strange hydrogen to ozone depletion, produced by the same type of electromagnetic disturbances in the atmosphere.

    BTW, don’t know if anybody mentioned this, but the primary reason for switching to HFC’s was because adding the hydrogen to the molecules made them more reactive, so they wouldn’t stay in the atmosphere as long. I don’t think (I could be wrong) they ever claimed it wouldn’t reduce O3 levels. I wonder how long and hard they studied exactly what it would react WITH and what the PRODUCT of the reactions would be? Or was the problem so “catastrophic” that HFC’s had to be rushed into service immediately? (sarcasm)

  75. OK, maybe I just had the most brilliant primary school teacher. (In fact I think that’s true – Miss Walker – an amazing woman! I’ll never forget her. But will I ever forgive her for putting me off dancing for life?)

    Shake.

    Anyway, my point is that ozone, and ozone layer holes, were well known about long before any “human” effect was suspected. (Even before people generally had fridges for Christ’s sake! let alone were found guilty of spewing CFCs into the air!)

    Is there really nobody out there who remembers anything like this?

    Has anyone got an “old” Encyclopedia they could look this stuff up in? I don’t, unfortunately, and it’s clearly pre-internet information. (Don’t anybody suggest Wikipedia!!!)

    I really need to know if I’m mad. I really can’t think why ozone should be the subject of “false memory syndrome”.

    All you old guys (and gals) out there. Help!!!

    S

  76. “”” jorgekafkazar (18:28:52) :

    “Way back when, somebody else noticed that hot things cool fast so we always make our car radiators nice and hot so they cool our engines effectively.“– George E. Smith

    I believe it’s more so that the operating temperature of the engine will be higher, giving higher efficiency…as long as nothing actually melts. “””

    Well not eggsackly. There’s no thermodynamic requirement that your engine get hot at all. Only the working fluid (air) is required to get hot to obtain a high Carnot cycle efficiency: (Tsource-Tsink)/Tsource

    And the efficiency grows faster if you concentrate on lowering the exhaust (sink) temperature, than if you try raising the source temperature. (which produces more an more materials problems; and pollution problems.

    The production of NOx in your engine by “burning” the air itself, is a result of the high temperatures and pressures obtained in a high compression IC engine. There’s no nitrogen in modern gasolines; so the NOX comes from burning the air. In principle you could ruan your car on air without gasoline, and simply use a laser blast to heat the working fluid (air) when required. But even with no gasoline in your car, that engine would still manufacture NOx; and that is why regular US gasoline is 87 Octane, and it isn’t legal to sell an automobile in the USA, that won’t run properly on that 87 Octane fuel. The idea is to restrict engine compression ratios so you don’t manufacture NOX. A supercharged engine is less thermally efficient than a high compression engine; but it doesn’t make as much NOx because of the lower engine compression ratio.

    But because of the lower thermal efficiencies, low compression or supercharged engines put out greater amounts of waste heat, and th3e stylists won’t allow the use of larger radiator frontal area..
    So to increase the cooling efficiency of the radiator, you have to raise the temperature of the water in the radiator so it loses heat faster by both conduction/convection from the air flow, but also from T^4 radiation.

    And of course to get that higher water temperature, you have to pressurize the radiator so the water boils at a higher temperature.

    The big gains in auto engine performance have come from better combustion chemistry, as a result of electronic ignition and carburetion/fuel injection; and not from higher Carnot efficiency.

    85% of all on the road auto problems are cooling system related; and the cause of that can be placed at the feet of pressurized high temperature radiators.

    Speaking of radiators; in a normal car radiator, you have air sometimes fan assisted entering the front of the radiator, and picking up heat from the hot internal fluid. So that air expands as it exits the radiator core because of the energy pick up from the heat exchanger (radiator).
    A direct result of this is your car’s radiator produces an actual forward thrust from the expanding radiator exiting air.

    This effect can be seen in spades on the belly of every P-51 Mustang plane, where the aerodynamic drag of that weird radiator placement, is more than compensated for by the thrust of this low tech “jet” engine.

    It’s called the “Meredith Radiator”, and it was invented by a British chap by the name of Meredith, back in the early 1930s. The engineers at North American who designed the P-51 (in record time), picked up on the Meredith Radiator, and today claim it as their own.

    Nonsense, hogwash, balderdash ! Under the Starboard wing of every single one of the 33,000 plus Supermarine Spitfire fighters of the RAF sits a Meredith Radiator; and the concept was incorporated into the first prototype K5054. It was a significant contribution to the efficient aerodynamic performance of the Spitfire. So now you know; the P-51 was a johnny come lately to the discovery of the Meredith Radiator.

    George

  77. I’ve scanned the responses to current date/time. I see no one who has noted that no one has ever seen the Antarctic w/o an O3 hole. It was there when we first started looking. It’s there now.
    Why did our science community ever entertain the hypothesis the we did it? Any HVAC technician knows that CFCs pour out of leaks onto the ground. Brownian movement could never explain the proposed elevation of these heavy molecules to the upper atmosphere, and thence (seemingly selectively) from NH to SH with congregation at 0 to 20 degrees South. The physics and mechanics of such movement never seemed to be questioned. The hypothesis existed, and thus was accepted. Forget evidence, proof, and honest scientific skepticism.
    I’ve suspected a Green/Corporate conspiracy since the first news reports. DuPont made millions based on the unsubstantiated scare stories.

  78. Ozone is NOT being depleted, it’s being MADE from the gases in our atmosphere meeting up with the waves or activity produced by our sun. Gas molecules (over 90% are water) are split or sheared when meeting up with incoming solar particles/galactic dust in the ionosphere and in turn causing o3(ozone) to be created and other off gases/carbon/minerals from the collision.
    Gases like CO2, chlorine( a depleter of O3) are being formed and bits of carbon14, salts, minerals dropping to the earth creating(seeding) cloud formation. Precipitation is formed from the nuclei or salt in the atmosphere. You don’t get rain or any kind of precipitation with out nuclei/salt.
    Salty rain water or salty snow melt makes it’s way down our rivers into our oceans where the life there turns CO2 into carbonates for shell formation and bone structure and the HO2 vapor is returned in a never ending cycle.

    So more carbon 14 is produced when the suns more active(hot) and less when the suns inactivate(cold), this is natural, and ozone is the same.

    Meaning, more ozone seen in the summer(hot), and less in the winter(cold).

    http://www.universetoday.com/2008/10/07/ozone-hole-bigger-again/

    The ozone hole is a non event and is regulated by the sun, the sun fluctuates energy and we get more or less depending on it’s cycles.

    Be it daily, seasonal, orbital or galactic, it’s cyclical influences on us inhabitance of earth by our sun is undeniable.

    The sun giveth and then take away, so just relax and enjoy the ride! ;)

  79. JimInIndy
    The hole was first observed in the late 70s. It was unexpected, so of course you won’t find earlier papers noting its absence. After it was first seen it grew rapidly – this pic shows the contrast between the small hole in 1981 and the much larger one in 1991.
    <a href=”http://www.theozonehole.com/ozoneholehistory.htm”?This site describes the history, and if you scroll down you’ll see a series of annual pics since 1981, chronicling the growth and levelling off.

  80. EM Smith (10:45:30), you make my point exactly. Your cost of CFC replacement, even at $2,000, is very much less than your share of $45 trillion (the IEA estimate for the replacement of carbon based energy sources), though you do seem to have had a lot of trouble with your refrigerants.

    I speak as an engineer who was responsible at the time for the maintenance of some environmental chambers. When the fridge system needed topping up, the service engineer used instead a non-CFC drop-in replacement. The only mod was to indelibly mark a warning not use naked flames on the system! There was no significant increase in cost or noticeable degradation of performance.

    We also had to replace CFC cleaning solutions in an electronics manufacturing plant, variously replacing these with iso-propyl alcohol, terpenes and de-ionised water. These were generally cheaper, safer and worked better.

    My children’s asthma inhalers seem to work as well as the previous type, better in fact because of other advances in design. I still have a Halon fire extinguisher, but its replacement will have to be dry powder, AFFF or CO2.

    I do however miss the old formulation of Tipp-Ex.

    While I appreciate that you’d rather folks weren’t cavalier with your money, similarly no one should be cavalier with other folks’ health and protection from solar radiation, which based on the scientific understanding at the time is what was believed to be at stake.

    So, yes, certainly some hassle and cost, but relatively low compared to the cost of changing away from a carbon-based economy, which will be astronomical.

  81. I seem to remember expressions of glee some years back–“we have severely trimmed back on CFC production and usage, and look at how the ozone hole is shrinking”! Now Professor Lu predicts ‘one of the biggest ozone holes ever’. If this comes to be with there being no parallel CFC usage upsurge, this should rather well nail the CFC-ozone depletion coffin.

    Who in a position of say-so would motivate a return to legality of the excellent refrigerants of the recent past? Or reverse the death penalty on R-22? Certainly not the people who have been and still are coining the boodle!

    Geoff Alder

  82. To Moderator: I meant for you to delete all of the following from the post timed Phil. (09:30:41). Sorry I wasn’t clear.

    Reply: all of those recent posts have been deleted, please start over.

  83. Ok, I just want to make this clear. It’s pretty obvious that CFC is degrading ozone. It can’t be denied. Although it is not the only reason for the generation of ozone holes, of course.

    Here’s the chemical reaction. CFC contain Chlorine (Cl)

    Cl· + O3 → ClO· + O2

    ClO· + O3 → Cl· + 2 O2

    Since the chlorine is regenerated at the end of these reactions, a single Cl atom can destroy many thousands of ozone molecules.

  84. Nothing is obvious until it is measured quantitatively in the natural system. Qualitative assessments coupled with weak corollaries and forced laboratory reactions only provide theoretical mechanisms for the possibility of those reactions to be occurring in nature.

  85. Geoff Alder (07:19:04) :
    I seem to remember expressions of glee some years back–”we have severely trimmed back on CFC production and usage, and look at how the ozone hole is shrinking”! Now Professor Lu predicts ‘one of the biggest ozone holes ever’. If this comes to be with there being no parallel CFC usage upsurge, this should rather well nail the CFC-ozone depletion coffin.

    It’s clear that many of those posting in this have not taken the trouble to read the paper and instead have taken the opportunity to rant about the Montreal protocol or relate their personal anecdotes about Freons! What Prof. Lu is proposing is an additional mechanism by which CFCs can break down and so deplete Ozone. His suggestion still requires the presence of CFCs and Polar Stratospheric Clouds (the reason why the depletion is worst in the antarctic). His theory is far from being a ‘nail in the CFC-ozone coffin’, it’s more of an additional foundation for the theory!

  86. His theory is far from being a ‘nail in the CFC-ozone coffin’, it’s more of an additional foundation for the theory!

    In fact it’s building on his previous work in the area …

    The money quote lies right in the abstract:

    The results provide strong evidence of the physical mechanism that the CR driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules plays the dominant role in causing the ozone hole.

    Halogenated molecules such as CFCs, methyl bromide, etc.

    Plain-english form: We may have pinned down the dominant reaction by which CFCs cause ozone depletion.

    Not: “The Antarctic Ozone Hole is said to be caused only by Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s). According to this new study, perhaps not.” as Anthony claimed in his original post.

    Anthony – will you be correcting your post now that you understand you’re totally representing the paper’s conclusions?

  87. I meant “misrepresented” above.

    Anyway …

    <blockquote.
    The Antarctic Ozone Hole is said to be caused only by Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s)

    This claim by Anthony is incorrect in itself, as other halogen-containing molecules such as methyl bromide are also known to contribute.

  88. To be a bit more specific …

    Lu cites an earlier paper of which he was co-author:

    Then the evidence of the correlation between CRs, chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) dissociation, and O3 loss was found from satellite data by Lu and Sanche…

    Now, Lu says he’s discovered the causation underlying the correlation.

    It is this dissociation of chlorofluorocarbon which gives rise to the chlorine which is fed into the reactions given above by a previous poster:

    Cl· + O3 → ClO· + O2

    ClO· + O3 → Cl· + 2 O2

  89. Nothing is obvious until it is measured quantitatively in the natural system. Qualitative assessments coupled with weak corollaries and forced laboratory reactions only provide theoretical mechanisms for the possibility of those reactions to be occurring in nature.

    And guess what Lu’s been doing the past several years …

  90. dhogaza, phil, Dorlomin, David Ermer, some others. Thank you, I was noticing exactly the same thing.

    Anthony posted about a paper that seeks to explain in greater detail one part of the mechanism by which CFCs are depleting the ozone layer. In no time at all a crowd had gathered, clearly without even reading so much as the abstract, hollering that this disproves everything they’ve been told about ozone layer depletion, and can they have their old refrigerants back now!

    No, no, no! Neither the latest paper by Lu, nor his earlier papers with Sanche, question the premise that halogenated compounds react with stratospheric ozone to cause the ‘ozone hole’. His paper presents more evidence to support the theory that cosmic rays play a role in the dissociation of halogenated compounds, i.e. they help break down the CFCs to more reactive species, a link in the complex series of reactions believed to reduce the ozone concentration.

    ‘Galactic Cosmic Rays May Be Responsible For The Antarctic Ozone Hole’ is accurate enough as a headline, as long as one takes the trouble to read that the cosmic rays do this by liberating halogens from CFCs.

  91. In no time at all a crowd had gathered, clearly without even reading so much as the abstract…

    More charitably, perhaps Anthony and the crowd read the abstract but didn’t understand what “halogenated molecules” means, and that CFCs are an example.

  92. Howarth (13:23:00) :

    About 20 years ago I heard a rumor, and I believe it is a rumor but I think it is an interesting one. It goes like this. DuPont’s CFC patent was going to expire and they were going to losing a large market share of the refrigerant market. Along comes the hole in the ozone theory and they covertly jump on it while patenting the next refrigerant R22 or R32 or something like that. It all worked out for them. Didn’t help me much when I was work on my boats fish hold refrigerant which was R12. But that’s just a rumor too. I didn’t buy the CFC/Ozone connect then just like I don’t buy the AGW theory now. The science is way to young for either one to start making trillion dollars mistakes.

    WRT Dupont and the Ozone Hole – Read Ref: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/blackstock5.html

  93. Even if true, it would simply reinforce the notion that DuPont understood the science and had buried it for fear it would come out *before* the patent expired.

    Which is as dumb as the other conspiracy theory.

    Now, tell me how your conspiracy theory supports Anthony’s inability to understand the scientific papers he quotes that totally demolish his supposition?

    REPLY: Don, what makes you say that? Also I have a question for you, why is your mind closed to the possibility? – Anthony

  94. Graeme Rodaughan (20:34:55) :
    WRT Dupont and the Ozone Hole – Read Ref: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/blackstock5.html

    When the author of this piece knows so little of the relevant physics that he tells me that CFCs are too heavy rise in the atmosphere as that would defy physical laws I know he’s spouting garbage on part of his story. Consequently I’m not inclined to give any credence to the rest of it!

Comments are closed.