D'Aleo on ozone hole: "It is very likely to have been there forever"

Ozone holes in Antarctic and Arctic relate to cold rebounds from warming events

By Joseph D’Aleo, Weatherbell.com

The ozone hole above the Antarctic has reached its maximum extent for the year, revealing a gouge in the protective atmospheric layer that rivals the size of North America, scientists have announced.


Spanning about 9.7 million square miles (25 million square kilometers), the ozone hole over the South Pole reached its maximum annual size on Sept. 14, 2011, coming in as the fifth largest on record. The largest Antarctic ozone hole ever recorded occurred in 2006, at a size of 10.6 million square miles (27.5 million square km), a size documented by NASA’s Earth-observing Aura satellite.

The Antarctic ozone hole was first discovered in the late 1970s by the first satellite mission that could measure ozone, a spacecraft called POES and run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The hole has continued to grow steadily during the 1980s and 90s, though since early 2000 the growth reportedly leveled off. Even so scientists have seen large variability in its size from year to year.

On the Earth’s surface, ozone is a pollutant, but in the stratosphere it forms a protective layer that reflects ultraviolet radiation back out into space, protecting us from the damaging UV rays. Years with large ozone holes are now more associated with very cold winters over Antarctica and high polar winds that prevent the mixing of ozone-rich air outside of the polar circulation with the ozone-depleted air inside, the scientists say.

There is a lot of year to year variability, in 2007, the ozone hole shrunk 30% from the record setting 2006 winter.


The record setting ozone hole in 2006 (animating here).


In 2007, it was said: “Although the hole is somewhat smaller than usual, we cannot conclude from this that the ozone layer is recovering already,” said Ronald van der A, a senior project scientist at the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute in the Netherlands.

This year, the ozone region over Antarctica dropped 30.5 million tons, compared to the record-setting 2006 loss of 44.1 million tons. Van der A said natural variations in temperature and atmospheric changes are responsible for the decrease in ozone loss, and is not indicative of a long-term healing.

“This year’s (2007) ozone hole was less centered on the South Pole as in other years, which allowed it to mix with warmer air,” van der A said. Because ozone depletes at temperatures colder than -108 degrees Fahrenheit (-78 degrees Celsius), the warm air helped protect the thin layer about 16 miles (25 kilometers) above our heads.  As winter arrives, a vortex of winds develops around the pole and isolates the polar stratosphere. When temperatures drop below -78C (-109F), thin clouds form of ice, nitric acid, and sulphuric acid mixtures. Chemical reactions on the surfaces of ice crystals in the clouds release active forms of CFCs. Ozone depletion begins, and the ozone “hole” appears.

Over the course of two to three months, approximately 50% of the total column amount of ozone in the atmosphere disappears. At some levels, the losses approach 90%. This has come to be called the Antarctic ozone hole. In spring, temperatures begin to rise, the ice evaporates, and the ozone layer starts to recover.

Intense cold in the upper atmosphere of the Arctic last winter activated ozone-depleting chemicals and produced the first significant ozone hole ever recorded over the high northern regions, scientists reported in the journal Nature.


This year, for the first time scientists also found a depletion of ozone above the Arctic that resembled its South Pole counterpart. “For the first time, sufficient loss occurred to reasonably be described as an Arctic ozone hole,” the researchers wrote.

It was related to a rebound cooling of the polar stratosphere and upper troposphere. Notice the December and early January warmth and VERY NEGATIVE AO and the pop of the AO and rapid cooling starting in January.


The Antarctic after a record negative polar warming, turned colder in mid to late winter (starting in late August).


Also note the scientists mentioning the sulfuric acid mixture’s role in the ozone destruction. Sulfate aerosols are associated with volcanism and the recent high latitude volcanoes in Alaska, Iceland and Chile may have contributed to the blocking (warming). Like a pendulum, a swing to one state, can result in a rebound to the opposite extreme very obvious in the arctic.

The data shows a lot of variability and no real trends after the Montreal protocol banned CFCs. The models had predicted a partial recovery by now. Later scientists adjusted their models and pronounced the recovery would take decades. It may be just another failed alarmist prediction.

Remember we first found the ozone hole when satellites that measure ozone were first available and processed (1985).  It is very likely to have been there forever, varying year to year and decade to decade as solar cycles and volcanic events affected high latitude winter vortex strength. PDF.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

James Lovelock after Climategate:
“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.”

Mike Bromley the Kurd

Back when I first heard of an ozone hole, I thought exactly the same thing….that we just happen to be able to see the dang thing.

Retired Engineer

Hold on thar. I recall reading about ozone hole discovery in the 1950’s by Dutch scientists. Back then they thought it grew larger or smaller with the sunspot cycle. “been there forever”? seems likely as CFC’s weren’t that big a deal in the 50’s.
One again, we’ve been had.

Scott Covert

Yes, the ozone hole was created in the 70s and there were fewer planets in deep space before the Hubble telescope was online.


Get your facts straight D’Aleo, the ozone hole was discovered by the scientists of the British Antarctic Survey based on results dating back to 1956. The rest of the piece is of comparable accuracy.

“Intense cold in the upper atmosphere of the Arctic last winter activated ozone-depleting chemicals and produced the first significant ozone hole ever recorded over the high northern regions, scientists reported in the journal Nature.”

Anyone else see the issue in this statement? The number of ways this is wrong just screams for attention from someone.


when i first read about the hole over the antarctic back in the 70’s, my first thought was “how do they know it’s caused by cfc’s if they have only just discoveredit?”, but then i was convinced by the argument
looks like i should’ve trusted my instincts

Stephen Wilde

“Years with large ozone holes are now more associated with very cold winters over Antarctica and high polar winds that prevent the mixing of ozone-rich air outside of the polar circulation with the ozone-depleted air inside, the scientists say.”
A more zonal atmospheric circulation tends to seal off the poles from ingress of wamer air from lower latitudes.
A more meridional atmospheric circulation allows flows of air in and out of the polar regions more frequently.
The former is a feature of positive Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations whereas the latter is a featutre of negative such oscillations.
Now it is increasingly becoming acknowledged that a top down solar effect may have an influence on the state of those Polar Oscillations. In particular those Oscillations were generally positive with poleward jetstreams during the late 20th century warming period and with the recent record solar quietness (compared to recent solar cycles) there was also record negativity in the Polar Oscillations and evidence of more meridional jetstreams.
So the evidence is building that larger ozone holes are a feature of higher solar activity which causes more positive Polar Oscillations.
Probably never any need to have invoked CFCs as a causative agent in the first place.


The data shows a lot of variability and no real trends after the Montreal protocol banned CFCs. The models had predicted a partial recovery by now.
I’ve seen this movie before.


Remember we first found the ozone hole when satellites that measure ozone were first available and processed (1985).
This just is not valid. Dobson found the ozone hole in 1956 that is who the units are named for. How many times he measured it I am not sure, but the fundamental knowledge of it is well prior to the 1980’s.


Is there any ‘proxy’ data to show a historical view of the ozone hole? Tree rings maybe? Any ‘hockey stick’ graphs to show the hole greatly expanded when my mother used her Aqua-Net hair spray?
Just askin’

Stephen Wilde

I should add that due to the high level of weather induced annual variability it would be possible to observe large ozone holes during a period of generally low solar activity and vice versa.
I think the general background solar induced trend is only apparent over decades and even more apparent over centuries. The most significant timescale being that from MWP to LIA to date.

Honest ABE

We have to keep this probable myth alive since disproving it would cast doubt on the “settled science” of global warming.

Retired Engineer is right on. Little was know about the Ozone hole until the 80’s but that is not to mean it was not there. This foolishness is just another case of Anthro-Ego overruling good science.


I am not a scientist, so please bear with me if my questions, and some of my conclusions, seem simple.
I have always been perplexed by the phenomenon by which CFCs that we produce cause depletion of our ozone layer. Actually, amazed is a better word to describe my reaction. As far as I can tell, CFCs act much more like an organism than a simple carbon compound. They exhibit preference, motivation and motility.
Let me explain. CFCs are relatively heavy compounds. Anyone knows that in a chlorine gas spill, the worst place to be is in low areas. The gas pools here because it is heavier than air. Presumably, CFCs would do the same given their first element is chlorine. Correct me if I’m wrong.
How then do heavier than air molecules go from dwelling near the surface of the planet to flying high in the stratosphere? Further, how do they migrate from areas that are far from the south pole and become concentrated there?
Next, we know our cars and industry produce ozone. We also know this ozone tends to pool around cities, especially in the summer time when there is high atmospheric pressure in place. Why don’t the CFCs we release readily bond with that ozone?
So, what we have here is a molecule that is capable of defying gravity, deciding it prefers “organic” ozone to the man-made variety AND it is capable of flying across the globe to meet up with all the other CFCs at a south pole convention where there is a giant buffet of organic ozone waiting for them.
F-ing amazing.


Benfrommo stated:
“Intense cold in the upper atmosphere of the Arctic last winter activated ozone-depleting chemicals and produced the first significant ozone hole ever recorded over the high northern regions, scientists reported in the journal Nature.”
Anyone else see the issue in this statement? The number of ways this is wrong just screams for attention from someone.

Now, I never took chemistry in high school, but from what my basic understanding is that a chemical reaction will be accelerated with the introduction of heat (energy). Example, white vinegar in a tea kettle, heat it up to clean out the calcium deposits faster. But the removal of heat (energy) will slow down chemical reactions. Am I wrong in this basic understanding?
Is there a chemical reaction that takes place when heat is removed? What chemicals are they referencing that are being activated?

Martin Clauss

Retired Engineer and Mike Kelly above have already stated what I remember: Dr. Dobson knew of the ‘thinning’ of the ozone ( I will NEVER call it a ‘hole’) layer in the 1950s, and that it was seasonal. I looked into this quite a bit when the ‘ban the Freon’ movement in the 1990s was going on, and was surprised that the ‘science’ appeared shoddy as compared to the claims ( . . gee why does that sound familair . . . 🙂 ).
And to ‘link the ozone thinning with CAGW’, I recall reading an article ( . .can’t find it now . . ) where I think Will Happer (from Princeston U, when he was an advisor in the Clinton administration) stated that the freon/ozone issue was a ‘primer to CAGW and controlling CO2.
Yeah, this may sound a bit too ‘conspiracy theory’, but one just has to look at the comparisons of how they have been ‘peddled’ to the populus. . .


Every time I read someone excitedly extolling the virtues of the Montreal protocol, thinking we “fixed” a problem with the Ozone… my estimate of their IQ drops by about 40.
Yeah, I still consider this one a “dress rehearsal”, and we’re watching the main show now. The entire argument was emotional and political… with very little in the way of Science, except as a prop.

Mike From Canmore

Junk science has some good data on historical ozone levels based on dobson’s work
Gotta catch my plane so don’t have time to find the exact link


I’m still waiting for someone to explain the huge buildup of ozone around the perimeter of the ozone holes. Higher than anywhere else on the planet, and also disappear when the holes disappear for the season. Explain their mechanism of creation and how they relate to the holes.

The statement, “On the Earth’s surface, ozone is a pollutant, but in the stratosphere it forms a protective layer that reflects ultraviolet radiation back out into space, protecting us from the damaging UV rays” gave pause. Doesn’t VU-C and shorter wave radiation split O2 and create ‘free’ O atoms that react with other O2 molecules to form O3 in the stratosphere? And, isn’t O3 highly reactive making it a generally a short-lived molecule in the atmosphere?
Ozone holes appear in polar Winter when the regions are not exposed to solar radiation as they are continuously facing away from the Sun. Circumpolar winds creating a vortex blocking mixing of polar air with that of lower latitudes plus natural degradation of pre-winter stratospheric O3 supply through reaction with other air molecules (with or without CFCs) plus NO UV to create new, replacement O3 seems to explain polar ozone holes quite well.


I know it’s not commonly expected, but I actually went and read the real reports, just to see if they really said what Joe says they did.
Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1994 – World Meteorological Organization Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project –

Based on assumed compliance with the amended Montreal Protocol (Copenhagen, 1992) by all nations, the stratospheric chlorine abundances will continue to grow from their current levels (3.6 ppb) to a peak of about 3.8 ppb around the turn of the century […] Peak global ozone losses are expected to occur during the next several years [Note: Remember this is a 1994 report]. The ozone layer will be most affected by human-influenced perturbations and susceptible to natural variations in the period around the year 1998, since the peak stratospheric chlorine and bromine abundances are expected to occur then.

And just to point out the difference between “stabilization” and “recovery”:
Global ozone losses and the Antarctic ozone “hole” were first discernible in the late 1970s and are predicted to recover in about the year 2045, other things being equal. (Note: the Arctic hole is expected to recover more slowly than global levels).
Joe’s own article above briefly mentions a date of “early 2000” for stabilization of ozone levels. Here is the source – see the graphs at the bottom-left. Believe it or not, the ozone hole does stabilize (whether in area or intensity) around the late 90s. Exactly as predicted in the above report.
If you reject this source, consider that it is also the ultimate source for Joe’s claim of a record 2006 ozone hole.
tl;dr: the Ozone hole is behaving exactly as predicted in a 1994 report. Joe’s claims to the contrary are refuted by simply reading said reports and original data about the ozone hole.

Laurie Bowen

1956 to the present is not enough data to establish any kind of longer term cycles . . . . therefore much less for the variations in shorter term cycles. . . . in my opinion.
But, that does not mean models prognosticating how it works and fits into the big picture can/will/have not be(en) formed . . . which truly is in the nature of human nature . . .


pittzer: It is truly freaky, but appears to be absolutely true. The molecules do get into the upper atmosphere and congreate at the poles. The explanation from wikipedia is quoted below, visit the “CFC” page for references:
Since the late 1970s, the use of CFCs has been heavily regulated because of their destructive effects on the ozone layer. After the development of his electron capture detector, James Lovelock was the first to detect the widespread presence of CFCs in the air, finding a mole fraction of 60 ppt of CFC-11 over Ireland. In a self-funded research expedition ending in 1973, Lovelock went on to measure CFC-11 in both the Arctic and Antarctic, finding the presence of the gas in each of 50 air samples collected, and concluding that CFCs are not hazardous to the environment. The experiment did however provide the first useful data on the presence of CFCs in the atmosphere. The damage caused by CFCs was discovered by Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina who, after hearing a lecture on the subject of Lovelock’s work, embarked on research resulting in the first publication suggesting the connection in 1974. It turns out that one of CFCs’ most attractive features—their low reactivity— is key to their most destructive effects. CFCs’ lack of reactivity gives them a lifespan that can exceed 100 years, giving them time to diffuse into the upper stratosphere. Once in the stratosphere, the sun’s ultraviolet radiation is strong enough to cause the homolytic cleavage of the C-Cl bond.
End quote. As an aside, CFCs are some of the most potent greenhouse gasses we know of.

Thanks Joseph,
Remember we first found the ozone hole when satellites that measure ozone were first available and processed (1985). It is very likely to have been there forever, varying year to year and decade to decade as solar cycles and volcanic events affected high latitude winter vortex strength.
Yes, the ozone hole, not having been seen before satellites could measure its depth and extent sounds more like a feature of our atmophere than a bug caused by mankind.


Dobson recorded the thinning of ozone starting with ground-based measurements in (around) 1956. The British Antarctic Survey (“BAS”)continued these. The “discovery” credit is usually given to Shanklin, et al for their Nature paper in 1985-a summary of BAS data. But satellite measurements of the seasonal thinning started in the early 1970’s and were confirmed by Nimbus-7 around 1978.
Lab studies by Molina/Rowland in 1974-75 demonstrated that CFC’s exposed to UV and at cold temps would deplete ozone. Never said that was the only mechanism for depletion.
USA banned CFC’s from aerosols in 1978.


Weren’t there laws passed that were supposed to get rid of this ozone hole? I distinctly remember hearing about such things. Yes, it was Freon and the stuff in hair sprays that were outlawed, right? Well if those were the causes of the ozone hole, how come it’s just as big as it ever was? Are countries like China still using Freon and the bad hairspray stuff? Or is this perhaps not due to chemicals created by mankind? I don’t know much about this. And why haven’t we heard a peep about this since the hysteria 20 years ago?


Also, regarding the “it was already observed in the 50s” canard: Dobson observed a difference between Arctic and Antarctic levels at a given time of year. This is not the same thing as the Antarctic ozone hole, which was discovered in the 80s (not by satellite observations).
You don’t even need to read the actual reports for that (though you should), it’s explained on Wikipedia.


Here’s a plot of total column ozone over Antarctica during October, from the mid 1950s to the present:
Prior to 1978, every single October measurement is above 250 Dobson Units.
During the 1980s, there is a roughly linear decline from 250 to less than 150 DU. That decline stabilizes after the passage of the Montreal Protocol.
It’s true that, prior to the introduction of CFCs, there was a regular (but small) seasonal decrease in Antarctic ozone. But the magnitude of the current ozone hole is much larger, and is definitively an artifact of CFCs.

There is another interpretation that may be of interest. Bear in mind that Low AO (Arctic Oscillation) and AAO (Antarctic Oscillation) represent high polar atmospheric pressure and relatively low pressure in the mid and low latitudes.
Briefly, high polar pressure is associated with increased night jet activity. The night jet represents a downdraft of mesospheric air into the stratosphere with dramatic effect on the ozone content and temperature of the upper stratosphere between 1hpa and 50hPa. The night jet introduces oxides of nitrogen from the mesosphere. These chemicals erode ozone.
When polar pressure is high, the temperature of the upper stratosphere falls. At the poles the stratosphere and the troposphere are coupled in convection, particularly in winter when the cold point of the atmospheric column rises to 20hpa, well into the upper stratosphere. A loss of ozone aloft slows convection. The tendency for air to settle over the pole when convection is weak is then enhanced, ozone is brought closer to the surface and the air below 100hpa is seen to warm, as we see with the red zones in the geopotential height diagrams above that are associated with low AO and AAO. The ability of ozone to trap outgoing radiation at 9.6 micrometres is critical to the temperature inversion that is the stratosphere.
Polar pressure cycles on long time scales. The AAO has been rising for sixty years and this winter we see it falling. The AO fell between 1950 and 1978, rose until the mid 1990s and has been falling since.
There are two vortexes to consider. Those focused on the stratosphere look at the night jet vortex. Those focused on surface dynamics look at the ‘front’ between the cold easterlies of polar origin and the warm westerly’s of sub tropical origin. But the front advances and retreats just as the front between two armies that are at war advances and retreats. When polar pressure increases the easterlies prevail bringing cold winters to the major continents. The easterlies are no longer ‘corralled’ by the westerly’s, a nonsense concept that reveals a lack of appreciation of changing pressure dynamics. The notion of ‘blocking highs’ represents too close a focus on the lower atmosphere and too little focus on the stratosphere where the situation responsible for the blocking manifests.
It is entirely natural that the southern hemisphere is relatively devoid of ozone at the end of winter after months of enhanced night jet activity.
One observes that warming in the lower layers of the atmosphere at the poles, mostly below 100hpa, is associated with cooling aloft and vice versa. This is an observation that is the key to understanding atmospheric dynamics at the poles and the evolution of temperature in winter. ‘Climate change’ is all about winter temperature when atmospheric pressure at the pole becomes so influential.
It is theorised that low UV associated with low solar acticvity is responsible for cold winters. It has become necessary to account for these winters so the story must change. But low UV is not even the half of it and understanding of polar atmsopheric processes has a long way to go before even eminent meteroroligists like Joe d’Aleo can tell the whole story.


It takes sunlight to create ozone. Ozone is unstable and will “deplete” on its own unless it is replenished in some way.
In winter the sun does not shine on the atmosphere of the pole, it is in the shadow of the Earth. There is nothing to make ozone. In winter, the polar air is sequestered from air at lower latitudes by a circumpolar jet preventing mixing with ozone rich air at lower latitude.
Ozone has no choice but to “deplete” under those conditions. It is naturally unstable and even destroys itself and it is cut off from all known sources of replenishment. It was there the first time we looked.
Here is what likely happened:
Some scientists noticed the ozone hole and saw a great opportunity for research that they could base a career on. Press releases were put out about this amazingly huge ozone hole including some speculation on how it might be harmful. Some politician or political faction takes up the theme running with the speculation until that leads to further speculation on what might be the “cause” of it. Politicians, in their desire to be “doing something” about it, ban all CFCs costing the taxpayers billions and employing a lot of people in “ozone hole research”.
Later we discover that it has probably been there all along, long after banning CFC’s they haven’t really changed to any significant degree and they are likely related to longer term weather cycles but are subject to considerable variation due to shorter term natural weather variation.
In summary: A bunch of hype by someone trying to make themselves a career costs global taxpayers billions of dollars and destroyed a US space shuttle killing its crew. In the meantime there is STILL no evidence that atmospheric CFCs have any significant role in ozone hole size and the latest research I have seen shows that the original models were likely off by two orders of magnitude in their estimation of CFC impact on ozone

Marty Altis

The way I see it, the Montreal Protocol passage was a slam dunk after Dupont got on board. Dupont, one of the largest if not the largest CFC producers, had the cunning to come up with CFC light, SUVA. Dupont, foreseeing EVERYONE changing over to a more expensive and harder to handle refrigerant (all be it a less efficient one), they saw the “Money in the Trees” and were happy to shake them.
When you see an oppurtunity to monopolize an item it only makes sense to have the Gov’ment seal of approval. It was Win-Win for industry and Gov’ment. The rest my friends is history. So much CFC BS

Alan D McIntire

Ozone is unstable and breaks down on its own. Ultraviolet light produces more ozone from the O2 in the atmosphere. Around the poles, we get 6 month long winters. Naturally the ozone breaking down is not replaced by new ozone created from ultraviolet light , because there is no sunlight.
Once the sun comes up in the spring, the problem takes care of itself. Those ozone shortages are more a measure of air circulation around the poles – weather-than they are of Chlorofluorocarbons.

Laurie Bowen

pittzer says:
October 20, 2011 at 8:46 am
Well said!
In the late ’60s I worked as a technician in a lab. We used Freon (tm …blah, blah, blah) in a large piece of instrumentation (8′ dia, 25′ long tank) as an insulator. When you opened the charging valve, the freon would blast out and fall to the floor. You could watch the vapors creep along and then drop into a pit. Not exactly lighter than air.
My question has always been, “Why is the hole in the SH, when 99+% of the freon was used in the NH. Lots of tap dancing around that, but I’ve never had a satisfying answer. You comments made me realize that the probability of CFCs doing any of what they’re charged with, is really remote. They don’t exactly have volcanos of freon like they do of SOx.

Marty Altis

Halon, the grand daddy of CFCs and the projected Bad Boy of Global Warming, is still used on almost evey airline plane in the world because it is the most effective, breathable fire extinguishing gas on the planet. CFC and the ozone hole, oh please help me, help me ( the Fly).


correction – volcanoes.


For those who wonder where the ozone comes from, here’s a link: http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/1z1.html
UV radiation from the sun bashes the oxygen molecules around and the result is ozone.
What gets rid of ozone? Cosmic rays: http://www.theozonehole.com/cosmicray.htm


Dave says:
October 20, 2011 at 8:58 am
Alan D McIntire says:
October 20, 2011 at 9:20 am
Exactly, I studied this on my own for years after it just didn’t sound right the first time I heard it. Ozone is the result of the protection, not the protection itself, Oxygen is the protection.


Clarification. the “Didn’t sound right” i was talking about was the ozone hole scaremongering.
UV+O2 = O3, and obviously it absorbs the energy in the process.


Reminds me of the lyrics to a jazz song “Dr Jeckyll and Mr Hyde”:
Do I care about the ozone layer?
Bout terrestrial suicide?
Or do I love my new hair sprayer?
Dr Jeckyll, and Mr Hyde
Really though, I remember some global green type, can’t recall now, saying that the whole ozone issue was only important because it served as a model for how to create a global response to an issue, a template for moving towards world government and control.


I wonder if polarity of the solar cycle affects the behavior of the hole.

To stir the pot further, Qing-Bin Lu is proposing solar cycle modulated cosmic rays affect the ozone hole. He predicts:

The results strength the conclusion that humans were responsible for global warming in late 20th century, but CFCs, rather than CO2, were the major culprit; a long-term global cooling starting around 2002 is expected to continue for next five to seven decades.

What is the Major Culprit for Global Warming: CFCs or CO2? Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 8, 1846-1862
Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules absorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change. Physics Reports 487 (2010)141-167.
Others dispute this:
Do cosmic-ray driven electron induced reactions impact stratospheric ozone depletion and global climate change?
David Stockwell finds a cumulative solar influence
When the dust settles will we see warming or cooling?
Will it be natural or anthropogenic causes that primarily drive climate?
As the Scots say, Not Proven.


Stephen Wilde says:
Probably never any need to have invoked CFCs as a causative agent in the first place.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some globalist, ‘interdependence’ and equity reasoning for banning CFCs…

Laurie Bowen

SidViscous says:
October 20, 2011 at 9:51 am
UV+O2 = O3
Is this an additional way to make Ozone?? It was my understanding that it takes O2 plus lightning (natural electricity) to make O3 ???
I have heard of this O3 being created in H2O with the use of UV from Sunlight . . . . We called it Sun Water. . . .


AFAIK, historical ozone records are available from Tromsoe/Norway since the end of the 30s.
As the name “ozone hole” was unknown at that time, they called it “Southern Anomaly”.
Historical data can be requested at NILU [Tromsø (1939-1972, 1985- 1999)], for those who can decode the data format.
I think, commieBoB is on the right way.
UV radiation from the sun bashes the oxygen molecules around and the result is ozone.
Lower UV from a quiet sun could be too weak to break up O2 molecules.
And, maybe I’m wrong, but some years ago a personal acquaintance, a diploma meteorologist told me about a ~40-year cycle he found in ozone hole swapping from SP to NP.
I’m not quite sure if he’s right?

lemiere jacques

is it possible to link that change in rotation speed of earth?
It seems to me the more obvious thing to look at…

I have very limited confidence in the veracity of the ozone data…
“Nimbus-7 TOMS Instrument and Satellite Information
The TOMS program began with the launch of TOMS Flight Model #1 on the Nimbus-7 spacecraft on October 24, 1978. Valid measurements started in November of that same year and the instrument continued to return data long after all other on-board experiments had failed. The TOMS instrument fell silent in May 1993. The software to derive useful information from the data returned by Nimbus 7 TOMS is the basis for the algorithm used to analyze all TOMS data and has gone through a lengthly evolutionary process bring it to the current version.The Version 7 processed data include a revised instrument calibration based on analysis of the entire 14.5 year data record (including a correction for a 0.2 nm wavelength error which caused a 3% absolute offset relative to Dobson) as well as an improved algorithm.
Algorithmic Improvements include:
use of wavelength “triplets” that correct for errors linear in wavelength
improved ISCCP cloud height climatology, higher resolution terrain height maps
use of improved profile shape selection to improve total ozone at very large solar zenith angles
use of a more accurate model for partially-clouded scenes
improved radiative transfer calculations for table generation”
NASA Ozone Data Source:
The data for 1979–1993 are from the TOMS instrument on the NASA/NOAA Nimbus-7 satellite.
The data for this 1993–1994 are from the TOMS instrument on the Soviet-built Meteor-3 satellite.
The data for 1996–October 2004 are from the NASA Earth Probe TOMS satellite.
The data for November 2004–2011 are from the OMI instrument (KNMI / NASA) onboard the Aura satellite. They are the OMTO3 that have beene processed in a manner similar to the TOMS data from earlier years.
The ozone minimum is determined only from data actually contained in the processed satellite data. To calculate the ozone hole area and mass deficit, we fill in missing areas (bad orbits and polar night) from an atmospheric model. MERRA is a NASA reanalysis for the satellite era using a major new version of the Goddard Earth Observing System Data Assimilation System Version 5 (GEOS-5). The Project focuses on historical analyses of the hydrological cycle on a broad range of weather and climate time scales and places the NASA EOS suite of observations in a climate context. Since these data are from a reanalysis, they are not up-to-date. So, we supplement with the GEOS-5 FP data that are also produced by the GEOS-5 model in near real time.”
So “long after all other on-board experiments had failed” it produced suspect data, which was then put through “a lengthly evolutionary process” that includes “revised instrument calibration”, “including a correction for a 0.2 nm wavelength error”, “as well as an improved algorithm” that included “a more accurate model for partially-clouded scenes” and “to calculate ozone hole area and mass deficit” they “fill in missing areas (bad orbits and polar night) from an atmospheric model.”
The “Ozone Hole” data, especially before 1996, seems very suspect and deserves further research and scrutiny…


Laurie Bowen says:
October 20, 2011 at 10:37 am
SidViscous says:
There is more than one way to make ozone, yes electricity makes it as well.
I know nothing about “sun water”

Further to data quality issues:
Corrected Earth Probe Data
correction basis: NOAA-16 SBUV/2 ozone
time period: August 1996 – December 13, 2005
data products corrected: ozone, reflectivity
By mid-2000, the Earth Probe (EP) TOMS instrument degradation became so large that standard correction procedures could no longer produce accurate ozone. The problem is believed to be inhomogeneous degradation of the scanner mirror on TOMS that results in a calibration error that is different at different latitudes. We have warned users that the production EP ozone data should NOT be used for trend analysis.
We have now applied a correction to the Earth Probe data that stabilizes the EP ozone record. This empirical correction is based on the NOAA-16 SBUV/2 ozone record, with a solar zenith angle dependence that accounts for much of the spurious latitude dependence observed in the current data. Only the ozone and reflectivity records have been corrected. The aerosol index data and SO2 records are more complex and have not been corrected by this empirical correction.
Comparison with the ground network shows that the resulting ozone is stable within ± 1% over the 1996-2005 period. In the period 2002-2005 in the northern hemisphere, there is a residual seasonally-dependent error of ± 1.5% magnitude. These data should still NOT be used as a source for trend analysis since they are no longer independent.
It seems like the TOMS instrument has a history of issues…