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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Re: Beth Cooper
Clarification: I’m not a climate change skeptic. Nonalarmist is a better term in my case; however I realize that I’m perhaps somewhat of an exception in this regard because although the vast majority of WUWT participants are not climate change skeptics, many are clearly alarmed by climate politics &/or ice ages. Regardless of what category people feel they fit in, ‘climate change skeptic’ is a misnomer for the vast majority here. Perhaps the key to accuracy is in always specifying what kind of skeptic – i.e. skeptical of what? Certainly most here are not skeptical that the climate changes naturally. My interest is in understanding nature.
Before I address some of the claims made above, it is worthwhile pointing out Steve McIntyre’s long-standing advice to skeptics: “Your argument is only as strong as your weakest point”. To the extent some of the comments about CFCs and ozone expressed here can be linked to AGW skepticism, that hurts the cause. When I have to admit that some of Lazy Teenager’s comments are more intelligent than some of the “skeptics,” it ruins my day.
But moving on, there have been several comments that doubt that atmospheric diffusion of CFCs can lead to their presence in the stratosphere. Some are honest questions, which I don’t have a problem with. Others, however, are dogmatic comments with no supporting data, other than “I know I’m right”. The latest was from Mike D. I’d like to see a citation Mike.
Dr. Dave doesn’t like my sugar analogy, I’ll admit that perhaps my sugar analogy was not perfect. What analogy ever is? But why use analogies when we have data?
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~beckya/Stratospheric%20paper%20(GRL).pdf
Because the stratosphere is a reactive environment for CFCs, here, their concentrations do decrease with altitude, but that’s because of UV degradation. The much less reactive (and heavier than air) SF6 is more uniformally dispersed in the stratosphere (hence its proposed use as a “tracer).
And then we have this.
http://omsriram.com/GlobalWarming.htm
(Warning to those who don’t want to read anything that might counter their preconceived notions: Trick link, so you better not dismiss is lightly. Hint: Read the acknowledgments.)
More data, this time for the troposphere:
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2000/12/06/ast17sep_1_resources/cfcstrip.gif
Two things you will note:
1) Concentrations are relatively uniform worldwide.
2) Average tropospheric CFC-11 concentrations match those in the lower stratosphere from the U. Wash link above.
And finally:
http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/drs/images/195/atmosphere/figures/medium/a10ozone-chlorine.gif
The solid lines are data
There are a number of errors made in previous posts about the history and known processes involved in ozone creation and depletion. If I may offer some corrections.
First,-The level of ozone in the antarctic had been measured for several decades before the use of CFCs. Dobson had designed a spectrometer in the 1920s to detect ozone levels. By measuring the ozone level during the polar winter when the UV synthesis of ozone should cease he was able to demonstrate the role of the Brewster-Dobson circulation in transporting ozone created in the equatorial region to the poles. As expected there were lower, but not zero levels during the winter. Then levels rose when sunlight returned to the polar vortex.
However because ozone is only made by photochemical reactions involving UV, but depleted by many other chemical reactions it was known that the presence of chemical radicals in the stratosphere could significantly alter the balance of ozone synthesis/depletion. Various possible risk chemicals were considered including water vapour, nitrous compounds, and chlorine from the sea.
It was theoretically possible that the chemically stable CFCs would be responsible for extra ozone depletion when sunlight returned to the antarctic polar vortex causing a decrease in ozone levels in the spring when they were predicted, and observed to rise due to UV photochemical synthesis.
When falling spring levels of ozone were observed in the Antarctic in the 70s the one remaining issues was whether CFCs were present in the polar stratosphere and whether any other halogen compounds, such as natural chlorine compounds from the surface could also be present.
Observations with balloons and with a refitted U2 spy plane showed that CFCs were present in the stratosphere, despite their ‘heavy’ molecular weight. And natural chlorine compounds are to reactive and water soluble to reach the stratosphere in significant amounts. Later isotope studies confirmed the industrial origin of the halogens causing the ozone depletion at the S pole.
The ozone holes at the S polar vortex are a result of the CFCs ozone depletion effect being significantly enhanced by the extreme cold, stratospheric crystals of acid and sunlight combining to provide a bigger catalyst effect from the CFCs on ozone depletion. It is an amplified, and dramatic reduction in ozone because of local conditions, but confirms the process that will inevitable occur at lower intensities through the stratosphere including in the equatorial regions where most ozone is created.
The possibility that the S polar ozone holes were a periodic natural phenomena that coincidentally reappeared when CFC levels in the stratosphere rose is unlikely because in increased UV exposure was a frequent past event around the Antarctic there would be evolutionary adaption by biological systems to the damage that it can cause.
izen says:
January 9, 2011 at 10:19 am
Later isotope studies confirmed the industrial origin of the halogens causing the ozone depletion at the S pole.
Whose studies? Can you provide references?
Where is the data available please?
If increased UV exposure was a frequent past event around the Antarctic there would be evolutionary adaption by biological systems to the damage that it can cause.
Can you point us to studies of the damage done to biological systems please.
Thanks
RR Kampen says:
January 9, 2011 at 2:24 am
“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.
There was no such thing as a UV index in the 70s. In fact the UV index was invented in 1994, as support material for the ozone hole con.
Here in California we are supposed to be under the thickest portion of the ozone layer. Presumably this would give us maximum UV protection, and yet we have +12 UV index days routinely during the summer.
Oh btw did you know Saturn has an ozone hole? It’s huge. It could swallow our planet whole without so much as a burp afterwards.
Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change
Qing-Bin Lu,
Department of Physics and Astronomy and Departments of Biology and Chemistry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada
Accepted 26 November 2009.
editor: S. Peyerimhoff.
Available online 3 December 2009.
Abstract
The cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces has been proposed as a new mechanism for the formation of the polar ozone hole. Here, experimental findings of dissociative electron transfer reactions of halogenated molecules on ice surfaces in electron stimulated desorption, electron trapping and femtosecond time-resolved laser spectroscopic measurements are reviewed. This is followed by a review of the evidence from recent satellite observations of this new mechanism for the Antarctic ozone hole, and all other possible physical mechanisms are discussed. Moreover, new observations of the 11-year cyclic variations of both polar ozone loss and stratospheric cooling and the seasonal variations of CFCs and CH4 in the polar stratosphere are presented, and quantitative predictions of the Antarctic ozone hole in the future are given. Finally, a new observation of the effects of CFCs and cosmic-ray-driven ozone depletion on global climate change is also presented and discussed.
We are inundated with the idea that CFC’s and chlorine compounds in general are ONLY produced by anthropogenic means. Please read this little blurb and then go find the reality:
http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_chlorine/science_sec.asp?CID=1214&DID=4696&CTYPEID=113
“The cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules absorbed on ice surfaces has been proposed as a new mechanism for the formation of the polar ozone hole.”
The problem with that is that the ozone hole grew when the sun was more active and cosmic rays were less.
kuhnkat: That blurb is sort of short on hard facts. It doesn’t particularly impress me that CF2CL2 was detected ***right at a volcano vent*** to be 400X times the background amount in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is big…If it is only 400X right at the vent, chances are that its contribution spread out over the entire atmosphere is going to be pretty small. The article doesn’t really challenge the fundamental claim that the current atmospheric levels of almost all of the CFCs and similar ozone-depleting compounds are due to man-made contributions. Its goal seems to be merchandizing doubt without really presenting any hard evidence to counter the basic accepted scientific facts.
It is also worth thinking about the source. Here is a something about the American Chemistry Council: http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Chemistry_Council and here is something about the source they reprinted it from (a publication of the American Council on Science and Health): http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Council_on_Science_and_Health Do you think either of these groups just might have an agenda?
Urederra reckons
——-
Rate is not important. If photolysis is essential in splitting CFCs then why the ozone layer is thinner at the poles, where there is less light. If CFCs were the cause of the ill-named ozone hole, the hole should be in the equator, where the stratosphere receives more light.
——-
Err no. CFC’s are tough molecules. It takes a good whacking with UV to break them apart.
Tthe research has been done. Some blogger simply making up stuff does not cut the mustard.
The process of ozone depletion is quite complex. Cold is an important factor. That’s why the Arctic has a smaller ozone hole than the Antarctic.
There’s no excuse for making stuff up when there is good info available and easily accessible.
Bubbagyro reckons
———–
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.
———-
This is so confused. Can I conclude from this the existence of physical organic chemist who does not understand or does not have confidence in UV spectrometry.
And that an ozone hole measured by both satellite and from the ground can’t possibly exist?
Crazy man.
Dr Dave says
————
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.
———-
Have you actually done this experiment? Properly, without solid iodine present. Once you have, and it still establishs a concentration gradient, could you try stirring it permanently to simulate a real atmosphere.
The theory for segregation of gases by molecular weight due to gravity is well established. Try calculating it for freons.
Tom_R says
———-
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.
———-
Hand waving. Prove it! Show me the numbers.
Mike D says
———
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
———
Prove it. Citation required.
Since CFC’s are everywhere I am going to make a wild guess that with the right instrumentation you can detect them anywhere on the planet. Including Antarctica.
@-tallbloke RE- ‘isotope studies confirmed the industrial origin of the halogens causing the ozone depletion…’
“Whose studies? Can you provide references?
Where is the data available please?”
I can’t remember the source of the original isotope work, but given the source I also can’t resist posting this –
J. C. Laube, J. Kaiser, W. T. Sturges, H. Bönisch and A. Engel. Chlorine isotope fractionation in the stratosphere. Science, September 2, 2010
Reported for popular consumption here –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11166140
“It is established that different manufacturing techniques will produce gases with particular isotopic ratios. Such information could help the authorities identify continuing sources. ”
—–
Re-increased UV exposure
@-Tallbloke-“Can you point us to studies of the damage done to biological systems please.”
I found a paper that specifically addresses the influence that UV has on biological ecologies from the Antarctic variations. –
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15839753
As it suggests, the UV exposure at different times of the year can alter the type of diatoms that can thrive. See this for similar work –
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17766142
I don’t know if any research has been done on sediments that would show possible variations from UV effects in the past. It looks possible that the type of diatoms present might give a proxy indicator of UV levels – no doubt with numerous other interacting factors and wide scope for uncertainty!
For those that might think that the research quoted in the original thread essay has not been refuted –
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100722092227.htm
“For the first time, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) scientists have successfully measured in the ozone layer the chlorine compound ClOOCl, which plays an important role in stratospheric ozone depletion. The doubts in the established models of polar ozone chemistry expressed by American researchers based on laboratory measurements are disproved by these new atmospheric observations. The established role played by chlorine compounds in atmospheric ozone chemistry is in fact confirmed by KIT’s atmospheric measurements.”
Mike says:
January 9, 2011 at 9:09 am
———–
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.
———–
Mike you made the claim, but you are asking me to prove your claim. I prefer to prove my own claims and not everyone elses claims. Otherwise I would be incredibly busy.
The basics Mike is that:
1. I can go into any store and buy a refrigerator that is cheap and not noticeably more expensive than the old CFC ones. They are probably cheaper.
2. These refrigerators are probably more power efficient than the old CFC ones.
3. The refrigerator compressors seem to be much smaller than the old ones.
On balance I would say the manufacturers have done a good job at adapting and the downsides have been exaggerated on this blog.
As for your claims about pressure and efficiency I note that CFCs and HCFCs are quite similar molecules and therefore I would be surprised to see much difference in there thermodynamic properties.
Furthermore obtaining more efficiency from thermodynamic machines requires going to higher compression ratios. Therefore over time I would expect to see higher compression ratios used in refrigeration compressors irrespective of the actual working fluid being used.
Let me get this straight. We’re concerned about exposure to solar UV raditaion in the high latitudes during the polar winter when the sun ain’t shining there?
This is nonsense, and illustrates the dangers of getting your science from web blogs. The only substantive point in the article is based on an indirect reference to a paper which questioned the reaction rates of Cl2O2. This paper is not actually referenced but is:Francis D Pope et.al Journal of Physical Chemistry A, volume 111, page 4322 (2007)
The present article quotes from some commentary in Nature about how this might cause a problem, with some quotes from Markus Rex, but omits the last paragraph.
Since 2007 further studies have been made, and it turns out that it is Pope’s 2007 paper that is probably in error, not the older measurements. See, for example,
Papanastasiou et.al Journal of Physical Chemistry A, volume 113, page 13711 (2009),
or
Wilmouth et al, Journal of Physical Chemistry A, vol 113, page 14099 (2009)
As for the many misconceptions regarding the ozone ‘hole’, like when it was first noticed, what causes it, when it forms, why it is primarily at the south pole, what molecules are responsible, how they get there etc. etc, try staring with NASA’s ozonewatch site (ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov) and following all the links – for example, this one http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/history.html shows that measurements began in the 1950’s but that a problem was not observed till about 1980.
kuhnkat ad homs
———-
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!!
———-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19240934
This is the later paper that supersedes the one in Joe’s article.
I’m glad that k. draws attention to the importance of reading conprehension skills.
A number of important points from the
2009 article.
1. The 2007 paper is in conflict with both the new data and multiple previous work. This means the 2007 work is an outlier and therefore most probably wrong.
2. The 2009 research has the benefit of hindsight and performed multiple checks on the validity of their own work.
3. The new absorption constant is consistent with the previous understanding of ozone depletion.
Therefore the newer paper has very very likely produced the correct result.
Izen knows what he is talking about
———
There are a number of errors made in previous posts about the history and known processes involved in ozone creation and depletion. If I may offer some corrections.
………
……..
———–
Read what he says. Believe it.
Why worry about a hole filled with ozone?
Guillermo Gefaell says:
January 9, 2011 at 12:14 pm
Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change
————
Thus refers to a scientific psper. Apparently there was some controversy at the time, came across it by google accident a few minutes ago.
Seems this work got shot down in flames. Before people get to keen on this paper to make CFC’s go away they should also read the followup papers and get a sense of the arguments used in the debate.
And no dumba—– ed superficial skimming to pick up out of context phrases. You know you do it.
Guillermo Gefaell says:
January 9, 2011 at 12:14 pm
Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change
————
This refers to a scientific paper. Apparently there was some controversy at the time, came across it by google accident a few minutes ago.
Seems this work got shot down in flames. Before people get to keen on this paper to make CFC’s go away they should also read the followup papers and get a sense of the arguments used in the debate.
And no dumba—– ed superficial skimming to pick up out of context phrases. You know you do it.
kuhnkat says:
January 9, 2011 at 12:56 pm
——–
We are inundated with the idea that CFC’s and chlorine compounds in general are ONLY produced by anthropogenic means. Please read this little blurb and then go find the reality:
http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_chlorine/science_sec.asp?CID=1214&DID=4696&CTYPEID=113
————
An interesting article. It appears to be trying to counter chemo-phobia, especially about chlorine compounds. However it is slightly misleading because it leaves out 2 important considerations:
1. How much?
2. What circumstances?
I am going to make a wild guess that the amount of CFCs coming out of volcanoes is tiny.