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.
“”””” higley7 says:
October 20, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Dupont’s patent on its most popular CFC had expired. They managed to pump up and fund the ozone hole scare, knowing all along that they had a more expensive alternative ready and waiting. The CFC-based ‘science” fostered by Dupont, has been shown to have been junk science, but it served the purpose at the time. “””””
And your post is based on junk research. .
FREON (CFCs) are patented products of Dow Chemical Corp. Dupont had the original patents for NYLON; not FREON. If I’m not mistaken, Monsanto Chemical makes better NYLON that Dupont by a method not infringing on Dupont patents.
George E Smith “What does meme mean”
meme/mēm/
Noun:
An element of a culture or behavior that may be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, esp. imitation.
An image, video, etc. that is passed electronically from one Internet user to another.
Widely used to indicate an internet idea which spreads without being checked.
higley7 says:
Dupont’s patent on its most popular CFC had expired.
Not true. Freon was patented in 1931. #1833847 if you want to look it up. Its patent ran out long before the scare.
You can always prove me wrong by actually finding the so-called DuPont patent that ran out.
And also I am an idiot. It would appear that Dupont is indeed the owner of the FREON trade name.
I might have got confused between Freons, and some electrically insulating inert liquids used as coolants for electronic devices, which Dow does make. They might be silicones; but don’t quote me, I could be on thin (or rotten) ice again.
sorry higley7
It also may be of value to look at the history of the Dupont family, fortune & phylosophy.
Phil. says:
October 20, 2011 at 8:06 am
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.
Phil – did anyone observe the absence of an ozone hole. – The idea of a human caused Ozone hole has the implication that the hole should not exist – which has never been observed.
As a consequence – how can you tell that it is indeed caused by human actions – it may have been there for millions of years.
Phil. says:
October 20, 2011 at 8:06 am
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.
The concept of a meme was first put forward by Richard Dawkins (Selfish Gene), as any replicating idea. I.e. Ideas evolve and capture space in minds iaw their capacity to do so.
Ged says: October 20, 2011 at 11:06 am
Still no one commenting on the giant amount of ozone rimming the hole?
Firstly, it’s not a “hole”, “The word hole isn’t literal; no place is empty of ozone. Scientists use the word hole as a metaphor for the area in which ozone concentrations drop below the historical threshold of 220 Dobson Units.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/ozone.php
Secondly the ozone surplus that exists outside of the “ozone hole”;
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/sbuv2to/gif_files/sbuv18_sh_latest.gif
is likely a dynamical effect of the stratospheric polar vortex, i.e. “The walls of the polar vortex act as the boundaries for the extraordinary changes in chemical concentrations. Now the polar vortex can be considered a sealed chemical reactor bowl, containing a water vapor hole, a nitrogen oxide hole and an ozone hole, all occurring simultaneously (Labitzke and Kunze 2005)”
http://books.google.com/books?id=B93SSQrcAh4C&lpg=PA283&ots=d0-uBRjmyI&dq=%22water%20vapor%20hole%22%20polar%20vortex&pg=PA283#v=onepage&q=%22water%20vapor%20hole%22%20polar%20vortex&f=false
Polar Vortices “are caused when an area of low pressure sits at the rotation pole of a planet. This causes air to spiral down from higher in the atmosphere, like water going down a drain.”
http://www.universetoday.com/973/what-venus-and-saturn-have-in-common/.
“A polar vortex is a persistent, large-scale cyclone located near one or both of a planet’s geographical poles.” “The vortex is most powerful in the hemisphere’s winter, when the temperature gradient is steepest, and diminishes or can disappear in the summer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex
“The ozone hole is in the center of a spiraling mass of air over the Antarctic that is called the polar vortex. The vortex is not stationary and sometimes moves as far north as the southern half of South America, taking the ozone hole with it.”
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/HALOE-Ozone.html
This article and associated graphics help to demonstrate the dynamical effect of the polar vortex on Venus’s south pole:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/venus-polar-vortex/
Retired Refrigeration Tech.
I was caught up in the change of cfc’s and banning of them so listened to all information available, In the early 1990’s here is Australia we were all required to attend a required course and exam to obtain a licence to use, handle cfc’s etc, I later obtained information that these courses were only a requirement and as long as it was attended you obtained a pass and received whatever grade of licence that was paid for (The higher the grade, the more cost, prob another gov. grab for cash). Freon 11 and 12 were made illegal to import and manufacture approx 1993 and existing stocks were still able to be used, R22 suffered the same fate at approx 1998. The information was that it was 2 years for Freon 12 to reach the ozone layer and Freon 22 took 10 years, as it was still being used etc and still much being released due to leaks in system failures I was told that on the NASA website it had recorded the hole closed in 1995 (The gas was still in the major transition stage at that time) as in the above links it was noted that no NASA information was recorded for that year (Conveniently lost?)
Also interesting as stated above and is also what I was told is that Dupont (A major world chemical manufacturer) had the patent for Freon expiring and a new gas was found and another patent introduced, The cost of all these refrigerants rose sharply and almost made them all prohibitive to use as well as the cost of a licence (Where is all this money now going)
Also noticed that in 1995 there was very little talk about the hole in the ozone layer and has reduced more by all the “Experts” and then became known as “The Greenhouse Effect” and then to “Global Warming” well since the earth hasn’t changed considerably it has now been changed to “Climate Change” who can deny anything about the climate changing, a very good choice of words by “Experts” or is it all about making more profits for select few?
A number of commentators here have claimed the article is inaccurate because the ozone hole was discovered in the 1950s, not the 1980s.
Whilst it is strictly speaking true that Dobson and others, as well as a Japanese expedition, did note some of the characteristics of the ozone hole in the 1950s, the “discovery” of it in scientific terms is usually dated to the 1980s when accurate measurements were first available. No cock-up or mystery here, just a question of definition.
Ged says: October 20, 2011 at 11:06 am
What happens if you average the ozone concentration for the hole and the entire surrounding, elevated “ridge”?
Ged says: October 20, 2011 at 11:09 am
For that matter, how does the highly elevated periphery of ozone sit with the CFC theory of depletion?
The dynamical effect of the Stratospheric Polar Vortex that results in the surplus of ozone around the “Ozone Hole” is likely also a significant contributor to the decrease in ozone that is referred to as the “Ozone Hole”, however it is likely only one factor.
Another factor is likely that, “HALOE data show, however, a surprising phenomenon occurring in the center of the Antarctic vortex. Air from very high altitudes descends vertically through the center of the vortex, moving air to lower altitudes over several months.”
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/HALOE-Ozone.html
Since air towards the top of the stratosphere and mesosphere have lower concentrations of ozone;
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/images/FIG-FAQ01.JPG
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/sp_profile.gif
when this air sinks within the funnel of the polar vortex it displaces the air below it, decreasing the concentration of ozone and contributing the “Ozone Hole”.
Furthermore, there appears to be support for a contribution to the “Ozone Hole” by nitrogen oxides from the thermosphere and mesosphere, i.e.;
“Large amounts of nitrogen oxide are produced in the lower thermosphere through the influence of energetic precipitating particles and solar radiation. During polar night this NO is occasionally transported downward to the stratosphere where it destroys ozone and subsequently may have an influence on stratospheric and potentially tropospheric circulation.”
http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/science/the-atmosphere-in-the-earth-system/topis-for-master-theses-at-the-meteorological-institute-of-the-university-of-hamburg/downward-transport-of-nitrogen-oxide-in-the-middle-atmosphere-during-polar-night-diffusion-or-advection.html
“Nitric oxide is an important minor constituent of the upper atmosphere that exhibits strong solar-terrestrial coupling. Nitric oxide directly affects the composition of the ionosphere, the thermal structure of the thermosphere, and may be transported downward into the mesosphere and stratosphere where it can react with ozone.”
http://lasp.colorado.edu/snoe/mission/mission_overview/science_objectives.html
Lastly, there may be a contribution to the Ozone Hole from CFCs;
“To recap then, the requirements for ozone loss are:
The polar winter leads to the formation of the polar vortex which isolates the air within it.
Cold temperatures form inside the vortex; cold enough for the formation of Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSCs). As the vortex air is isolated, the cold temperatures and the PSCs persist.
Once the PSCs form, heterogeneous reactions take place and convert the inactive chlorine and bromine reservoirs to more active forms of chlorine and bromine.
No ozone loss occurs until sunlight returns to the air inside the polar vortex and allows the production of active chlorine and initiates the catalytic ozone destruction cycles. Ozone loss is rapid. The ozone hole currently covers a geographic region a little bigger than Antarctica and extends nearly 10km in altitude in the lower stratosphere.”:
http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/part3.html
however, the attribution of the entire “Ozone Hole” to CFCs certainly appears erroneous.
At some point I read an interesting essay suggesting that the bio-chemistry of the ocean effected the photo-chemistry of the upper atmosphere.
It stated:
1.) Any element ending in “Ine” (Chlorine, Bromine, Fluorine, Iodine,) could be used to break down Ozone.
2.) Plankton and other critters create a brew of complex molecules containing such elements in the ocean.
3.) Hurricanes and major Gale centers turn the surface of the sea to sheets of wind-blown spray, and large amounts of this spray is swept upwards by updrafts right up to the tropopause.
4.) This brings non-manmade molecules up where they play a part in the destruction of ozone.
Apparently this component to the upper atmosphere wasn’t considered, in some models.
I am curious about the measurement of CFCs up at the pole. What exactly was measured? Is there any chance they may have been measuring a non-manmade trace gas, by mistake?
.
“On the Earth’s surface, ozone is a pollutant,”
Retired Engineer says:
October 20, 2011 at 2:09 pm
re: sun water?
Yep. Short wave UV will create Ozone in water. Lots of hot tubs and swimming pools use it to clean the water, killing bacteria and so forth.
I can understand why they want to demonise carbon dioxide, it’s simpler to do so in order to promote the scare, but who is benefitting from getting us to think of ozone as a pollutant? All the chemical industries’ disinfectant divisions perhaps? There are ozone machines which can be used in homes and factories, iirc, to disinfect and get rid of mould (mold) and such, just run for a couple of hours and the room is done.
As Graeme noted above, nobody has ever seen the South Polar sky w/o the “hole.” Therefore, cause and effect is pure supposition, assumption, and assertion — really solid science!
Don Keiller @ur momisugly October 20, 2011 at 11:24 asked about a refutation of the base hypothesis. I saw, at the time, Markus Rex’s 2007 report of the errors in the chemical reactions that formed the scientific justification of the Montreal Protocol. It did conclude there was at least an order of magnitude error in the original justifying calculations — and it was a pure gold, peer-reviewed report.
See: http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html.
I followed the discussions and commentary for a few months and assumed, since no serious dispute emerged, that the “CFCs = Ozone-destruction” hypothesis had been disproved.
Since the CFCs are responsible again, I guess I just don’t understand all this science stuff.
For centuries humans have looked at the natural world and sought to explain it in terms of human activity. If we pray to the Gods we will get rain. If we offer human sacrifice we will increase the crops. If we kill the witches the cold weather will end.
We look back on the past and laugh at these people. How could they have been so foolish.
Yet, at the time each group was a convinced they were right as anyone is today. We are those people. When the natural world changes at the same time we take some action, we believe our actions to be the cause.
for example: Every time I turn on the TV and tune in the Canucks they lose. When I turn off the TV in disgust, they score and go on to win. Therefore it is me causing them to win and lose.
How many out there have observed the very same effect with their own local sports teams? That when you watch them they lose, but when you stop watching they win? Thus, you too are causing your local team to win and lose.
“Large amounts of nitrogen oxide are produced in the lower thermosphere through the influence of energetic precipitating particles and solar radiation. During polar night this NO is occasionally transported downward to the stratosphere where it destroys ozone and subsequently may have an influence on stratospheric and potentially tropospheric circulation.”
http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/science/the-atmosphere-in-the-earth-system/topis-for-master-theses-at-the-meteorological-institute-of-the-university-of-hamburg/downward-transport-of-nitrogen-oxide-in-the-middle-atmosphere-during-polar-night-diffusion-or-advection.html”
Quite so, and the quantities vary with the level of solar activity due to wavelength changes.
I have proposed elsewhere that a more active sun produces more ozone destroying chemical reactions above 45km ro reduce ozone there and thereby cool that part of the atmospheric column and that furthermore that process dominates over the better known ozone creation processes below 45km when the sun is more active so as to overall produce a reverse sign temperature response in the mesosphere and stratosphere i.e. cooling and NOT warming when the sun is more active. Exactly as was observed during the late 20th century without the need to invoke human enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect.
Hence also the observations noted by Joanna Haigh between 2004 and 2007 when unexpectedly at a time of quiet sun ozone amounts above 45km INCREASED whereas ozone amounts below 45km DECREASED.
I believe an Australian radio operator first noticed the depletion of the ozone layer over Antarctica. It was in 1957 during the International Geophysical Year. Radio operators used the ozone layer to reflect or bounce signals. He found that in winter the ozone layer seemed to ‘disappear’ and appear again in summer. The same thing was repeated the next year. So the idea that an ozone hole over the poles is winter could be a permanent feature over thousands or more years might be very well right.
JimInIndy,
“It did conclude there was at least an order of magnitude error in the original justifying calculations — and it was a pure gold, peer-reviewed report.
See: http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html.
I followed the discussions and commentary for a few months and assumed, since no serious dispute emerged, that the “CFCs = Ozone-destruction” hypothesis had been disproved.”
This indicates two things :
1) “peer review” does not stop with publication
2) you did not follow for long enough
In fact several papers have turned up which overturn the surprise commented on in nature, and revert to the previous status quo.
In particular,
Wilmouth et al Journal of Physical Chemistry A, vol 113, page 14099 (2009)
and
Papanastasiou et al Journal of Physical Chemistry A, vol 113, page 13711 (2009)
Here is (part of) the abstract of the latter paper (the other reaches much the same conclusion)
——————–
The Cl(2)O(2) absorption cross sections obtained for wavelengths in the range 300-420 nm are in good agreement with the Cl(2)O(2) spectrum reported previously by Burkholder et al. (J. Phys. Chem. A 1990, 94, 687) and significantly higher than the values reported by Pope et al. (J. Phys. Chem. A 2007, 111, 4322). A possible explanation for the discrepancy in the Cl(2)O(2) cross section values with the Pope et al. study is discussed. Representative, atmospheric photolysis rate coefficients are calculated and a range of uncertainty estimated based on the determination of sigma(Cl2O2)(lambda) in this work. Although improvements in Our fundamental understanding of the photochemistry Of Cl(2)O(2) are still desired, this work indicates that major revisions in current atmospheric chemical mechanisms are not required to simulate observed polar ozone depletion.
———————
Basically what that means is : Pope et al were wrong, we have confirmed the earlier results are correct.
>>
Laurie Bowen says:
October 20, 2011 at 10:37 am
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 ???
<<
The correct chemical equation for creating ozone is (all properly balanced):
3O₂ + energy <-> 2O₃
This is a reversible reaction.
The energy can be from lightning, ultraviolet light, or electrical discharges (for example). You can smell ozone around model railroad trains (especially when they derail), Jacob’s ladders (popular in SciFi shows), and Van de Graaff generators (just to name a few sources).
You need enough energy to rip one of the oxygen molecules apart. The single oxygen atoms may join with two other oxygen molecules to form ozone. Somewhere I read that a single oxygen atom has the oxidizing power of fluorine. It’s primarily the single atoms of oxygen that are responsible for the bleaching action of chlorine bleach (sodium hypochlorite).
Jim
CKB….. But CFCs are produced naturally by chemical processes in the upper atmophere under certain conditions, according to the the above article….. So, could it have been that Lovelock was actually measuring naturally produced CFCs and not anthropogenic CFCs?
According to Hugh Ellsaesser, “read George Dobson´s work on his observation of this phenomenon back in 1957.) Because of the extreme difficulties and marginal conditions for making observations of total ozone over Antarctica in the austral spring, unprecedentedly low values such as are found in “The Hole” would, in all probability, have been rejected as erroneous and not recorded prior to the availability of confirmatory observations from balloon soundings and satellites.
In George Dobson’s: “Exploring the Atmosphere,” Chapter 6, (Oxford Press, 1968) it is quite clear that he noticed a deep decrease in ozone values during the International geophysical Year in 1957. The same low levels were recorded by French scientists Leroy and Rigaud at Dumont D’Urville base in Antarctica at the same date as Dobson’s aides in Halley Bay base.
In any case, the observational data available to date suggest that the Antarctic “Ozone Hole” is an ephemeral phenomenon, appearing and disappearing periodically or aperiodically, rather than something that has just been identified and is steadily getting stronger or bigger (Singer 1988).
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Ingles/OzoneHole.html
J.H.
I cannot see anywhere in D’Aleo’s article which says that CFCs are produced naturally in the upper atmosphere, but if he does, he’s wrong. Only one CFC is naturally occurring in significant quantities, and that is methyl chloride (CH3Cl)
I have read a statement by one person who said he first became aware of the danger Global Warming from all the extra carbon dioxide we were putting into the atmosphere when he read that the minimal human use of CFCs in spray cans had caused a huge hole to open up in the ozone layer over the South Pole and that it was projected that continued use of these chemicals would soon eliminate this layer over the whole Earth. As I recall, the person stated this as the revelation of an established scientific fact.
US 3,258,500 “Process for Fluorinating Halohydrocarbons” owned by E. I. du Pont seem to be a “submarine patent” due to pre-1995 filing & the 7 years difference between filing in 1959 & the year it was granted 1966. A that time patent terms were 17 years from the date it was granted. That make expiration in 1983, Wikipedia seem wrong w/t the date 1979.
DuPont made the U-turn & publicly condemned CFCs in 1986… Maybe it took a little while for the captain of the “submarine” to come up w/t a new plan!
HCFCs also seem to have received a specific “life cycle” time.
The show must go on!!!
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
——–
Joe can’t even get the history of the discovery of the ozone hole correct.
And yet he somehow concludes that he knows for sure that the scientists are wrong and that he is right based on no evidence whatsoever.
The chemistry of the breakdown of ozone needs halogen atoms and the only way to get that is from CFCs. The scientist didn’t just pull this out of there a…es. A whole lot of research went into what was causing it and why.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 20, 2011 at 10:46 pm
J.H.
I cannot see anywhere in D’Aleo’s article which says that CFCs are produced naturally in the upper atmosphere, but if he does, he’s wrong. Only one CFC is naturally occurring in significant quantities, and that is methyl chloride (CH3Cl)
Jimmi,
A) What difference does it make which CFCs appear naturally in the stratosphere?
According to the World Meteorological Organization’s 2006 Ozone Depletion Assessment:
ftp://ftp.nilu.no/pub/NILU/geir/assessment-2006/10%20Q&AsChapter.pdf \
(see chart comments for Q28):
“On average, global ozone decreased each year between 1980 and the early 1990s. The decrease worsened during the few years when volcanic aerosol from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991 remained in the stratosphere.”
The CFC banners therefore admit at least some of the ‘damage’ is natural.
B) From the same assessment (see 7.5.1):
ftp://ftp.nilu.no/pub/NILU/geir/assessment-2006/08%20Chapter%207.pdf
“All other UV modulating geophysical variables being stable, it is expected (Ed. BUT NEVER OBSERVED!) that decreases in stratospheric ozone will lead to increases in UV radiation at the surface.”
C) At their peak use in 1996, CFC medical inhalers globally accounted for less than 1% of total CFC global emissions (inhalers used about 9,600 tons of CFC globally that year).
D) The banning of CFC inhalers (to ‘save’ the ozone layer) has resulted in increased morbidity/mortality among respiratory patients due to the less safe, less effective HFA-propelled, “ozone friendly” inhaler replacements (we have data from the FDA’s MedWatch complaints and numerous clinical trials to support our position, as well as thousands of patient complaints and hundreds of physician complaints).
THREE QUESTIONS FOR THIS GROUP
1) How do those who support the CFC ban justify their alarm over theoretical increased seasonal UV at the poles when there is so much more UV around the equator all year long?
2) How do those who support the ban of CFC medical inhalers in particular remain silent on the commercialization/recreational use of space (Branson, for example), when it’s been shown that just “a handful” of space shuttle flights do more harm to the ozone layer than 50 million US patients using CFC inhalers for a year (U of Colorado)? (I do not necessarily oppose the commercialization of space, but I’d assign a slightly higher priority to keeping kids from choking to death from crappy ‘ozone-friendly’ inhalers, if I had to choose.).
3) We are getting POLITICAL SUPPORT from key US Senators in our effort to create a medical exemption in the US Clean Air Act for lifesaving CFC inhalers and we need a few BRAVE, HONEST SCIENTISTS to support us in this effort. If you are willing to publicly support our position, PLEASE CONTACT ME in San Francisco at 415-295-4509 ext 1 or email me at sponsor@SaveCFCinhalers.org
Thanks to Anthony, and to all you, for contributing to this outstanding thread.
Arthur Abramson
The National Campaign to Save CFC Asthma Inhalers