Galactic Cosmic Rays May Be Responsible For The Antarctic Ozone Hole

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.

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

Wow. All those wasted fridges………………

Taking into account CFC’ s molecular weight I would accept that they could make a hole but in the ground!
No more “hollywood science”, please!

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?

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

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.

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

“”” 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.

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??

The ozone hole was the first scam.
Global Warming the second.

I’m going to do a superb segway here.
Antarctic = Cold
Cold is what you’ll feel in blizzards
blizzards expected in southern US

George E Smith
Thanks for that great explanation
TonyB

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.”

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

“”” 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

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

Can I have my R-12 back?

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 .. 😉 )

janama (14:42:52) :
But – according to this article we saved the ozone hole so we can save the climate!
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/we-saved-the-ozone-layer-now-its-time-to-save-the-climate-20090326-9c4o.html?page=-1

Thank you for pointing this out! This is exactly the kind of thing I was referring to in my last post. Such total and complete BS (bad science) !!!

Here is a link to North Pole Ozone Hole:
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/ozone.html
Check the bottom of the page for info and links to graphs and TOMS data.
Quite small, but occasionally there. You need direct sunlight to create ozone. Without this you lose ozone even without CFC’s…

The earth has been here for billions of years and why was it that it has develop a hole just now? 🙂

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

“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”.

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.

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!

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

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?

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.

quick followup to my post, I guess Sen Grassley from Iowa is heading up an investigation into HFA inhalers
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/03/asthma_hfa04.html

“What is with RealClimate? Dissent is not allowed to post?””
Correct, it is a fundamentalist warmist site. Heresy is not tolerated.

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.

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.

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)

“”” 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

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! 😉

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.

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.

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.

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 …

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.

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