Dr. Will Happer of Princeton wrote “The Montreal Protocol to ban freons was the warm-up exercise for the IPCC. Many current IPCC players gained fame then by stampeding the US Congress into supporting the Montreal Protocol. They learned to use dramatized, phony scientific claims like “ozone holes over Kennebunkport” (President Bush Sr’s seaside residence in New England). The ozone crusade also had business opportunities for firms like Dupont to market proprietary “ozone-friendly” refrigerants at much better prices than the conventional (and more easily used) freons that had long-since lost patent protection and were not a cheap commodity with little profit potential” (link).
Even James Lovelock agrees. James Lovelock formulated the Gaia hypothesis, which postulates that the biosphere is a self-regulating entity with the capacity to keep our planet healthy by controlling the chemical and physical environment. He later became concerned that global warming would upset the balance and leave only the arctic as habitable. He began to move off this position in 2007 suggesting that the Earth itself is in “no danger” because it would stabilize in a new state.
James Lovelock’s reaction to first reading about the CRU emails in late 2009 was one of a true scientist:
“I was utterly disgusted. My second thought was that it was inevitable. It was bound to happen. Science, not so very long ago, pre-1960s, was largely vocational. Back when I was young, I didn’t want to do anything else other than be a scientist. They’re not like that nowadays. They don’t give a damn. They go to these massive, mass-produced universities and churn them out. They say: “Science is a good career. You can get a job for life doing government work.” That’s no way to do science.
I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.
Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science. I’m not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It’s the one thing you do not ever do. You’ve got to have standards.”
On a March 2010 Guardian interview, Lovelock opined:
“The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing…We do need skepticism about the predictions about what will happen to the climate in 50 years, or whatever. It’s almost naive, scientifically speaking, to think we can give relatively accurate predictions for future climate. There are so many unknowns that it’s wrong to do it.”
Will Happer further elaborated:
“The Montreal Protocol may not have been necessary to save the ozone, but it had limited economic damage. It has caused much more damage in the way it has corrupted science. It showed how quickly a scientist or activist can gain fame and fortune by purporting to save planet earth. We have the same situation with CO2 now, but CO2 is completely natural, unlike freons. Planet earth is quite happy to have lots more CO2 than current values, as the geological record clearly shows. If the jihad against CO2 succeeds, there will be enormous economic damage, and even worse consequences for human liberty at the hands of the successful jihadists.”
LIKE GLOBAL WARMING THE DATA DOESN’T SUPPORT THE THEORY
The ozone hole has not closed off after we banned CFCs. See this story in Nature:
Scientific Consensus on Man-Made Ozone Hole May Be Coming Apart
As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.
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, dichlorine 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 stratosphere – 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.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.
STILL COMING
Yet like the cultists whose spacecraft didn’t arrive on the announced date, the government scientists find ways to postpone it and save their reputations (examples “Increasing greenhouse gases could delay, or even postpone indefinitely the recovery of stratospheric ozone in some regions of the Earth, a Johns Hopkins earth scientist suggests” here and “Scientists Find Antarctic Ozone Hole to Recover Later than Expected” here.
“The warmers are getting more and more like those traditional predictors of the end of the world who, when the event fails to happen on the due date, announce an error in their calculations and a new date.” Dr. John Brignell, Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton, on Number Watch (May 1) PDF
Jason says:
January 8, 2011 at 5:15 pm
You are right on the mark. Ozone is paramagnetic, unlike most other gases. The CFC hypothesis of ozone depletion has been falsified on many front for years, but the eco-wackos never adjust their suppositions.
To begin with, there is no ozone “hole”. Most of the “crises” that we will face in the future come from instrumental interpretations that are based on sometimes arbitrary assumptions. For example, an instrument may be way more accurate today, but the sampling is defective. GIGO results. As a physical organic chemist, I see this all the time. The second corrupting factor tends to be the lack of understanding of statistics. People are measuring things now down to the parts per quadrillion, with sampling errors in the parts per thousand. Useless data results. We are seeing such a thing with land and ocean temperature measurement. I could go on and on with examples.
GIGO.
Lu, Q.-B. (2009). Correlation between Cosmic Rays and Ozone Depletion. Physical Review Letters 102, 118501.
http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/Lu-2009PRL.pdf
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/23/confirmation-of-solar-forcing-of-the-semi-annual-variation-of-length-of-day/
The “ozone hole” is unique. Within only a few decades of its discovery it was blamed on mankind. Perhaps one day some sharp researcher will devise a proxy method to go back in the geological record and take a look at what history might tell us. I maintain that more than likely the “ozone hole” has always been there…it’s caused by…winter.
To accept the CFC theory one must accept a LOT and ignore even more. Think of all the chemicals that mankind emits and then consider that these are dwarfed by gases and chemicals emitted by nature (see Craig Idso’s work). Consider that Mt. Erebus is in Antarctica. It was “discovered” in the late 19th century (and was erupting). It has been been continuously erupting since at least 1971, belching tons and tons of halogens into the atmosphere every year. Where is a similar volcano in the northern hemisphere?
I don’t doubt that CFCs could theoretically migrate to the stratosphere and catalyze the destruction of ozone. But so could a VERY long list of LOT of other chemicals, most of which are natural in origin. I’ve read a lot of insipid comments here today. My favorite was the mixing of gases like sugar in water. CO2 does this, CFCs do not. For example, vaporize some iodine in a closed vessel. The very heavy iodine vapor will collect at the bottom of the vessel. Sure, there will be elevated iodine levels at the top relative to pure, outside air but the iodine concentration will steadily increase as you sample closer to the bottom of the vessel. Even in gaseous form, gravity is a bitch. Then take a glass rod and stir everything up. Cork it and let it sit for a day or so and see what happens. The iodine vapor will settle out to the bottom. The gas is indeed, miscible in air, but gravity draws it earthward because of the difference in density. Some gases freely mix in air whereas others do not. I have no doubt that some CFCs might find their way to the upper atmosphere. What I don’t know is at what concentration and is this actually significant or simply something that can be measured.
I don’t know if the “ozone hole” is “natural” or not. I most certainly don’t know if mankind has any influence over it or not (and neither do the researchers). What is quite obvious is that it seems to fit a convenient political and financial agenda.
>> Keith Minto says:
January 8, 2011 at 6:07 pm
richard verney says:
January 8, 2011 at 11:08 am
Interesting point you made about CFC’s so high up.
CFC density @ur momisugly -29.8 1.486 g/cm^3
Air density @ur momisugly -25 0.0014 g/cm^3
Assuming one atmosphere of pressure. <<
And it's far less than one atmosphere of pressure in the stratosphere. As you get higher up, the molecular weight matters more and more. Further out, atmospheric gasses separate by weight. While there is still mixing of heavier molecules in the stratosphere, it's not as effective as it is lower down, and even at sea level they tell you to crawl out of a smoke-filled room.
Roughly, the molecular weight of CF2Cl2 is 121. Compare that with 32 for O2, 28 for N2, 40 for Ar, 18 for H2O and 44 for CO2.
Note also that for transporting chlorine into the stratosphere, HCl and NaCl are both lighter and more abundant than CF2Cl2.
I’ve said it before.
Chlorofluorocarbons: heavier than air.
Ozone layer: above the tropopause.
Why is it so hard for some people to understand that chlorofluorocarbons do not cause a “hole” in the ozone layer?
I still remember when Voyager was approaching Uranus, and all they had to show us was one great big ozone hole staring back from the gloom.
And then Venus, them Venusians have us beat. They have two ozone holes, one at each end! Poor Europe. Invested all that money to get in on the space game and they have to tap dance around Venus. That’s a head buster innit.
How to report on their discovery without comparing Venus’ ozone holes with the one on Earth?
OT
IPCC Professor Calls For “Elite Warrior Leadership” To Rule Over Eco-Dictatorship
“An influential professor who worked as an assessor for the United Nations IPCC has called for democracy to be replaced with an eco-dictatorship where enslaved masses are ruled over by an “elite warrior leadership” and forced to adhere to a new green religion, in yet another shocking example of how prominent global warming alarmists are revealing themselves as dangerous eco-fascists.
Professor David Shearman, MD, is Emeritus Professor of Medicine, University of Adelaide, and a Visiting Research Fellow at the University’s Department of Geography and Environmental Sciences and Law School. Shearman was an Assessor for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report and the Fourth Assessment Report.
In his writings, Shearman, who labels humanity a “malignant eco-tumour” and an “ecological cancer,” says that “authoritarianism is the natural state of humanity” and that in order to save the planet from man-made climate change, an “elite warrior leadership” needs to be formed that will “battle for the future of the earth”.”
http://www.infowars.com/ipcc-professor-calls-for-elite-warrior-leadership-to-rule-over-eco-dictatorship/
Nope, mid 1950s. It wasn’t taken up as a cause until the late 70s or early 80s, even though there was no discernible change in its season fluctuation.
“…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 stratosphere – almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate…”
And yet again, we return to a previous story – the one about the SORCE satellite.
You know, the story in which an instrument on the satellite shows LOWER THAN EXPECTED levels in the UV range, and HIGHER THAN EXPECTED levels in the IR ranges.
So the “orders of magnitude lower” just may be caused by “orders of magnitude difference” in the suns SPECTRUM (while TSI wasn’t changing, the spectrum was.)
And, as further testing is done, they just might find an unknown cycle in the sun’s spectrum.
Appears to be the sun, after all…
Pat Moffitt says:
January 8, 2011 at 12:04 pm
“Look at the environmental movement as a self organizing system…”
I see an eco-crisis research-industrial complex, closely following the highly successful model of the military-industrial complex, promoting fear and selling protection from real and imaginary enemies. Now they want to battle climate change, and they say it will be very expensive.
This post and comments shows how an open society may contribute to meaningful debate and to the historical record, e.g.Jim Owen, ( knew the person who dicovered the ozone hole, who said…) … pertinent sceptical comments by E.M Smith, James Sexton, Paul Vaughn and Stephen Wilde, and witty demolitions of the Precautionary Principle by Ric Loche, Richard Verney et al. This, by RL is worthy of wide dissemination: ‘The Precautionary [Principle] tells us that we should never, ever turn our affairs over to an idealogue with an agenda.’ :>)
Re ge0050 says:
January 8, 2011 at 9:49 am
What ever happened to “Save Water – Shower with a friend”?
Wouldn’t changes in UV show up in the various Antarctic core samples?
@Kwik, @Dirk H
The point I am trying to make is that I don’t think it is right to take Rex’s work as if it is a damning indctment of previous science and then discount the guy’s own conclusion.
All he was saying was, “there appears to be data that shows we don’t understand everything about CFC breakdown” and then “but there is still enough other evidence to suggest that anthropogenic CFCs and halons are the cause of ozone loss”.
Either take the whole piece of work or discount the whole piece, otherwise you will be accused of cherry picking.
@coaldust
Read John M’s (no relation) comment on mixing of gases. Gases mix completely, irrespective of molecular weight. “Settled science”.
My point:
If we want to be taken seriously, it is better to accept scientific reality and fight the dubious policy decisions and unjustified speculation (like “this particular drought was caused by AGW”). There doesn’t seem to be any serious science that questions the role of CFCs – even Rex’s paper was later rebutted and pretty much retracted – so move on to where AGW proponents are weakest, which IMHO is predicting how bad things are going to get in the future.
“I maintain that more than likely the “ozone hole” has always been there…it’s caused by…winter.” said Dr. Dave.
http://www.patagoniatimes.cl/content/view/924/102/
The UV-index at this incident reached 12. Normally at 53 degrees latitude it cannot exceed 7.5 even in midsummer. A UV-index of 12 may be felt keenly. Such was not reported in the seventies or before.
Unfortunately Global Warming is slowing the healing process of the Antarctic ozone. But the ‘hole’ was never expected to ‘close’ within say 30-40 years after the ban of freons.
hadnt we better ban Lightning as well? it creates Ozone.
and if cholrine based chem is an issue?
how come we all get pushed to use chlorine bleach to high amounts in homes?
ie nappies whites etc..
suspected Ozone was a fiddle, when I realised agw was the same style of panic and fearmongering, nice to have it confirmed.
The South Atlantic Anomaly probably has more to do with the thinning of ozone (I will not call this a hole) than humanity.
Joe scandalises
————-
The ozone hole has not closed off after we banned CFCs. See this story in Nature:
————–
So Joe has found a breathless ozone hole article from 2007 and presents it as new news. It was based on preliminary results from one experiment as far as I can tell. After 3 years I figure the measurement will have been either confirmed or found wanting.
So I think I am going to poke around to see what the eventual outcome was.
Joe falsely claims
———
LIKE GLOBAL WARMING THE DATA DOESN’T SUPPORT THE THEORY
———
Sorry Joe, but I did a check. It appears that your claim of new research dated 2007 was wrong due to impurities in the matrix. In 2009 someone made some better measurements.
The ozone hole reaction mechanism is still fine.
Just do a google for the chemical species described in the Nature paper and it pops up straight away.
And Joe i think you need to fact check all that other stuff you claimed for ozone hole research as well. Could be embarrassing if it turned out you were repeating lies and it happens that you were so easily fooled because it was what you wanted to hear.
Jim Owen claims
———-
Since I knew the person who “discovered” the Hole, I asked him about it. The answer was that the Hole was real, but the “science” was pure hype. His theory was that it was a natural occurrence that varied on a periodic basis based on factors that were never later pursued. He was NOT the person who was credited with discovering the Hole – that person stole the credit by pubishing first.
————-
And who was that person who has been claiming that someone stole the credit? This is sounding like rubbish and sour grapes to me.
If memory serves NASA did not discover the ozone hole. So who do you think got the credit fit it?
Morgo claims
————
also the replacment gass has higher pressures that means higher operation costs
————-
I reckon you are making up the claim that higher pressures lead to higher operating costs.
So prove it!!!!!
To explain the year, 2002, that was the year my daughter went from hairspray to curling iron.
Uh oh. Troll on board. LT, your theories are all hot air. For decades researchers have been looking for CFC’s with instrument balloons over Antarctica, but they haven’t found any. No CFC’s there. Maybe the CFC’s kill the ozone somewheres else, and then all the ozone leaves Antarctica to fill the voids thousands of miles away? Kind of like Maxwell’s demon of the stratosphere? Is that your model? Why don’t you prove it, LT?
Lazy Teenager,
How about you work to get rid of the “lazy” part of your moniker, go and find the enthalpy-pressure diagrams for freon and 134A working fluids and then construct on those diagrams the refrigeration cycle. Let us all know what you find out.
LazyTeenager,
Apparently you did not read either research paper. Neither paper proves their point. The only conclusion is that we still do not know and we now have better information that the original estimates of the reaction speed were WRONG as BOTH of the new studies show a slower reaction time!!
The only real data we have is that stopping production of CFC’s has made NO difference in the appearance of the Antarctic Ozone hole. You may also want to ponder on the FACT that the Arctic, which is much closer to all the evil CFC production, never had much of a hole and still doesn’t. The factors making up the ozone hole have little to do with anthropogenic activities.
Your moniker “Lazy” is apparently appropriate.