At AGU, NASA says CFC reduction is not shrinking the ozone hole – yet

NASA Reveals New Results From Inside the Ozone Hole  – Dec. 11, 2013

visualization of average zone hole in October 2013

The area of the ozone hole, such as in October 2013 (above), is one way to view the ozone hole from year to year. However, the classic metrics have limitations.Image Credit: NASA/Ozone Hole Watch

NASA scientists have revealed the inner workings of the ozone hole that forms annually over Antarctica and found that declining chlorine in the stratosphere has not yet caused a recovery of the ozone hole.

More than 20 years after the Montreal Protocol agreement limited human emissions of ozone-depleting substances, satellites have monitored the area of the annual ozone hole and watched it essentially stabilize, ceasing to grow substantially larger. However, two new studies show that signs of recovery are not yet present, and that temperature and winds are still driving any annual changes in ozone hole size.

“Ozone holes with smaller areas and a larger total amount of ozone are not necessarily evidence of recovery attributable to the expected chlorine decline,” said Susan Strahan of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “That assumption is like trying to understand what’s wrong with your car’s engine without lifting the hood.”

To find out what’s been happening under the ozone hole’s hood, Strahan and Natalya Kramarova, also of NASA Goddard, used satellite data to peer inside the hole. The research was presented Wednesday at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.

Kramarova tackled the 2012 ozone hole, the second-smallest hole since the mid 1980s. To find out what caused the hole’s diminutive area, she turned to data from the NASA-NOAA Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership satellite, and gained the first look inside the hole with the satellite’s Ozone Mapper and Profiler Suite’s Limb Profiler. Next, data were converted into a map that shows how the amount of ozone differed with altitude throughout the stratosphere in the center of the hole during the 2012 season, from September through November.

The map revealed that the 2012 ozone hole was more complex than previously thought. Increases of ozone at upper altitudes in early October, carried there by winds, occurred above the ozone destruction in the lower stratosphere.

“Our work shows that the classic metrics based on the total ozone values have limitations – they don’t tell us the whole story,” Kramarova said.

profile of ozone mixing ration over time from Suomi NPP

A look inside the 2012 ozone hole with the Ozone Mapper and Profiler Suite shows how the build-up of ozone (parts per million by volume) in the middle stratosphere masks the ozone loss in the lower stratosphere. Image Credit:NASA

The classic metrics create the impression that the ozone hole has improved as a result of the Montreal protocol. In reality, meteorology was responsible for the increased ozone and resulting smaller hole, as ozone-depleting substances that year were still elevated. The study has been submitted to the journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

Separate research led by Strahan tackled the holes of 2006 and 2011 – two of the largest and deepest holes in the past decade. Despite their similar area, however, Strahan shows that they became that way for very different reasons.

Strahan used data from the NASA Aura satellite’s Microwave Limb Sounder to track the amount of nitrous oxide, a tracer gas inversely related to the amount of ozone depleting chlorine. The researchers were surprised to find that the holes of 2006 and 2011 contained different amounts of ozone-depleting chlorine. Given that fact, how could the two holes be equally severe?

The researchers next used a model to simulate the chemistry and winds of the atmosphere. Then they re-ran the simulation with the ozone-destroying reactions turned off to understand the role that the winds played in bringing ozone to the Antarctic. Results showed that in 2011, there was less ozone destruction than in 2006 because the winds transported less ozone to the Antarctic – so there was less ozone to lose. This was a meteorological, not chemical effect. In contrast, wind blew more ozone to the Antarctic in 2006 and thus there was more ozone destruction. The research has been submitted to the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

This work shows that the severity of the ozone hole as measured by the classic total column measurements does not reveal the significant year-to-year variations in the two factors that control ozone: the winds that bring ozone to the Antarctic and the chemical loss due to chlorine.

Until chlorine levels in the lower stratosphere decline below the early 1990s level – expected sometime after 2015 but likely by 2030 – temperature and winds will continue to dictate the variable area of the hole in any given year. Not until after the mid 2030s will the decline stratospheric chlorine be the primary factor in the decline of ozone hole area.

“We are still in the period where small changes in chlorine do not affect the area of the ozone hole, which is why it’s too soon to say the ozone hole is recovering,” Strahan said. “We’re going into a period of large variability and there will be bumps in the road before we can identify a clear recovery.”

Related Links

› NASA Goddard’s Ozone Hole Watch website


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

“That assumption is like trying to understand what’s wrong with your car’s engine without lifting the hood.”
In other words the Montreal Protocol was a hoax? Oh.
NASA, did the UN even authorize you to admit that?

James Ard

The ozone hole hoax was good practice for becoming a climate skeptic. All of the same ingredients; media hype, end of the world predictions and a boogieman that actually benefited mankind.

The researchers next used a model to simulate the chemistry and winds of the atmosphere.
We’re saved!

Doug Proctor

Or CFCs were not the primary driver of the OBSERVED ozone hole: meaning that even without CFCs, there would still be a significantly large hole in the ozone layer. CFCs could make an ozone hole worse, but no-CFCs won’t make the hole completely collapse.
Like CO2 and the thermal regulation of the planet, the assumption is that CFCs control the size of the Antarctic ozone hole. Why? Because “we” don’t have any other idea about what might cause large variations in its size.
The obsessive drive for a Unique Solution is everywhere politicians, scientists and laymen want or need simple solutions easily and cheaply put in-place.

el gordo

There was a multinational that did very well out of this scam, but its name eludes me.

Chris @NJSnowFan

I do not read anything about a huge factor with the decline in sun spot activity in last two cycles and #24 being the lowest in some 200 years.
High sunspot activity and CME’s destroyes Ozone cooling the stratosphere.
Ozone layer has been getting a break since 2008 with the quiet sun but ozone destroying CFC’s are still in lots of older products snd are leaking out the CFC’s.
I have see in the past few years people will punch a hole in old AC unit containing CFC’s so they do not have to pay for propper removal of the cfc’s in the unit.


Chlorine in the atmosphere has natural sources. The ocean releases far more chlorine into the atmosphere than CFCs. It was always about control, never about science.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)

I seem to recall several studies about bromides(?) being produced off of ocean waves and fresh Arctic snow…. or do those affect ozone at the wrong places?

Mike Maguire

“That assumption is like trying to understand what’s wrong with your car’s engine without lifting the hood.”
“In other words the Montreal Protocol was a hoax?”
Hoax? Of course not. The new climate rule, as outlined by the latest IPCC report, states that science should increase certainty of an atmospheric process as time goes on………..up to 95% when empirical data contradicts your expectations.
After all, real climate scientists are never wrong, the data just needs to be interpreted the right way.
Al Gore, not being a real climate scientist, jumped the gun in 2006 by stating “The science is settled”. The IPCC needed another 7 years, using their unique interpretation of contradictory empirical data to come to that conclusion.

Brian H

All based on another failed presumption of attribution.


Sheesh! Another instance of quack science layered on top of a bogus hypothesis, sprinkled with predictions of doom and destruction.
Anyone want to want to recall DDT? Never had any connection with raptor eggshells or mortality or survivability. Another perfectly good chemical (for killing malaria-bearing mosquitos) was eliminated from the human arsenal of promoting better living standards. Rachel Carson may rot in Hell for her role in the preventable deaths of millions of poor children.
As a chronic asthmatic, I need a rescue inhaler that used to be charged with a very effective propellant of halogenated-hydrocarbons. Got sacked by the “Montreal Protocol” and the replacement propellant ain’t worth sh*t.
This is not “Better living through chemistry”, as the old ad slogan stated

David Ball

Make sure to let the idiots at the DIscovery channel know this.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t the ozone hole exist in the first satellite records, and it was concluded that the hole was unnatural (hence the Montreal Protocol)? Was there ever any non-satellite evidence that stratospheric ozone was being depleted before the satellites reported the “hole”?
I’m of the impression that the answer is “no”, but I cannot find a reference to back my hypothesis.

Dodgy Geezer

As I recall, the proposal that CFCs were the main drivers for the loss of ozone was made on lab experiments and models alone, with little or no sampling and understanding of what was actually going on. This is not surprising – a full sampling program of the polar stratosphere in the 1980s would have been tricky and costly.
I had heard that the main reason that the Protocol was agreed was that DuPont suddenly changed their minds and supported it. And that this was because their patents on CFCs were about to run out, and they were going to lose a valuable part of their product list. If CFCs could be made illegal, people would have to use second-best substitutes, which DuPont had been inventing (in a vain attempt to make a better CFC), and which DuPont still had patents on…
I guess we’ll never know…


The ozone layer is not homogeneous. It has pillars like a plasma formation. So any current model will fail if trying to predict anything about it like depletion from CFC’s….
In other news Oh No’s….
Newly discovered greenhouse gas ‘7,000 times more powerful than CO2’


NASA scientists have revealed the inner workings of the ozone hole that forms annually over Antarctica and found that declining chlorine in the stratosphere has not yet caused a recovery of the ozone hole.

Is it just possible that the Ozone hole has always been there?

Janice Moore

@ Geology Jim — re: Rachel Carson, regardless of where she ended up, you are right about one thing: she was a main cause of the deaths of millions.
I’m very sorry to hear that you have to deal with such a lousy inhaler situation. It’s one thing for the Envirostalinists to force us to use detergents and household cleaners that aren’t worth a rat’s squeak, but, it is just plain ev1l that they deny you effective medicine. Take care, WUWT ally for truth.
“… wind blew more ozone to the Antarctic in 2006 and thus there was more ozone destruction.”
And more people live along the beaches, so more people die in hurricanes (“Hurricanes More Deadly Now! Story at 11”), and…. on and on — ad nauseum.
Way to get the truth out, all you fine commenters of WUWT!!
HURRAH FOR AN-THO-NY WATTS! A shining light for truth in the darkness of l1es and corruption that is the “science community.”

Maybe they shouldn’t assume the chemistry model is correct if the real results don’t match the model. Wait, we believe models and not our lying eyes.


The first satellites that specifically went looking for ozone depletion found the hole, but for all we know the hole has been there for hundreds, thousands, or millions of years or longer. As far as I know, there is no conclusive data indicating that the hole was not there prior to the widespread use of CFC’s.

John Littlehale

My daughters inhaler went from a $5 copay to a $35 copay due to the new degraded but now patent protected version of the propellant. Blame Dupont for lobbying to change it as well as our avaricious incompetent legislators who saw the campaign dollars.


The Ozone hole scare looks just like Catastrophic Runaway Man-Made Global Warming. It’s a pile of horse manure fit for the very best kept gardens. The ozone hole is most probably made a little bigger by man’s CFS but some argue that the ozone hole has always been there.
Apparently there is a North Pole ozone hole as well as a Tibetan hole. How many more holes can I take?


I have my doubts about the DDT story as well, but pelicans have definitely come back in LA and I think elsewhere. Has anyone seen explanations of this that do not involve DDT? I have not looked into the papers that linked DDT to weak shells, but have been meaning to.

William Mason

If you suspect that something is causing a problem and you apply the fix for that but somehow it doesn’t cause a recovery would you at some point conclude that you were mistaken about the cause in the first place? Why do they stick to their original theories so adamantly? I think it’s time to reevaluate.

How about mankind just let the Earth get on with what it does and not worry about trying to pin the blame on anyone or anything.
Not one of the doomsayers has ever gotten anything right. They squawk and strut and tear their hair and look for billion dollar handouts (you’d think that’s enough to make anyone twig to what’s going on). After centuries of repeated shenanigans, is it too much to suppose that one day – ooh, maybe in a couple more millennium – human beings might pull themselves together, give each and every doomsayer that pops up a swift kick in the pants (or mandatory jail time), and get on with living and enjoying life?
How peaceful life would be, and what marvels could we learn, if each and every generation were not taught guilt just for being alive? Too much to hope for? Oh, well.

How much chlorine is released into the atmosphere from everyday uses like laundry and swimming pools? Seems to me that IF chlorine is responsible they just banned something that would let them make more money.


Here is Jeffrey Masters, Ph.D. — Director of Meteorology, Weather Underground, Inc. arguing against himself. He fails to ask AND answer one question: Has the hole always been there?


As I understand it the Antarctic ozone hole grows in the winter and shrinks in the summer – lending one to suspect that the hole has more to do with the extremely cold temperatures, and the total lack of sunlight – sunlight which is needed to generate ozone in the first place. However I’m no expert, just an interested bystander who tries to think about issues.
Questions I’d like to ask include – what is the wind pattern in the upper atmosphere over the South Pole in the winter? Does this pattern change in the summer? Are there any older scientific records from Antarctica which could possibly give us a history of the ozone hole prior to the satellites?

CFCs have nothing to do with the Ozone above the Antarctic.
Maybe thats why it’t not healing.

Bill Illis

I think the Ozone just gets moved out of the polar vortex at the end of the winter, to the sides of the polar vortex.
Some of the highest readings of Ozone in the atmosphere anywhere are at the edges of the polar vortex when the hole has formed.
For example, Ozone on October 20, 2013 from the new OMI instrument. Yes, there is a big hole but there are also areas on the edge of the (misshapen at this time) vortex which are the highest numbers in the atmosphere. Polar view first, global second.


Perhaps it’s becuase CFCs don’t have anything to do with ozone depletion?

Gerry Parker

In fact, I clearly remember the very first measurement of the ozone hole- and based on that single data point global catastrophe and human causation was projected.
Gerry Parker


DocattheAutopsy says:
December 11, 2013 at 3:53 pm
I will have to search for the reference as it is in 1950’s hardcopy book on space science. I recall that early results from Russian sub-orbital sound rockets led them to conclude that ozone would be naturally thin if not non existent over the poles. This was well before Sputnik.


“Not until after the mid 2030s will the decline stratospheric chlorine be the primary factor in the decline of ozone hole area.”
OK, so WT* did he say?
This study is almost complete speculation based on a science that we obviously don’t even understand yet.
Reminds me of something I heard in a song once!
“Money for nothin and your checks for free”
Video redacted ▶

20 years ago Dixy Lee Ray in “Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense?” pointed out that the ozone layer is in fact created by UV dissociating O2 and that , having a finite half life , it’s not surprising that it is depleted during the course of the sunless polar winters . Additional chlorine may speed that depletion , but it always has and always will occur . Further , it has no consequence for surface life because it happens literally where the sun don’t shine .
The extremism of the eco-statists on this topic is displayed by their undoubtedly killing at least some asthma sufferers by criminalizing the most effective affordable inhaler , Primatine Mist , for the gram or so of propellant each contains .They even have refused to permit the sales of already created inventory despite their being no simple way to dispose of them without releasing their CFCs . ( I laid in a supply before the ban , which given my infrequent need , should last a number of years . )
I consider these people criminal misanthropes .


Another funding please Scare winding up??? Notice the pic from AP.

Ian M.

For the back story look at Dow Corning’s patent on Freon that when it was about to expire and south american factories were ready to start producing it much cheaper “research” came out about how CFCs were destroying ozone and with some well coordinated manoeuverings the Montreal protocol was set in motion. The damning research… well that just happened to come from Dow Corning who was ready to save the day with a much less effective but delightfully more expensive replacement that they had the patent on. Follow the money. You will also find some of the names behind the Montreal Protocol hanging around Kyoto. Best show in town.

Bill Illis says: December 11, 2013 at 5:13 pm
I think the Ozone just gets moved out of the polar vortex at the end of the winter, to the sides of the polar vortex.
Yes, the “ozone hole” is likely a result of the dynamical effect of the stratospheric polar vortex, i.e.:

“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.”

And there are other “holes” along with the ozone one, 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)”

“measurements of low methane concentrations in the vortex made by the HALOE instrument on board the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite.” Rapid descent of mesospheric air into the stratospheric polar vortex, AGU 1993

For those not familiar, 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.”

“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.

Polar Vortices and their “holes” also exist on Mars;
and Saturn’s Moon Titan;

Long-term vortices are a frequent phenomenon in the atmospheres of fast rotating planets, like Jupiter and Saturn, for example. Venus rotates slowly, yet it has permanent vortices in its atmosphere at both poles. What is more, the rotation speed of the atmosphere is much greater than that of the planet. “We’ve known for a long time that the atmosphere of Venus rotates 60 times faster than the planet itself, but we didn’t know why. The difference is huge; that is why it’s called super-rotation. And we’ve no idea how it started or how it keeps going.”
The permanence of the Venus vortices contrasts with the case of the Earth. “On the Earth there are seasonal effects and temperature differences between the continental zones and the oceans that create suitable conditions for the formation and dispersal of polar vortices. On Venus there are no oceans or seasons, and so the polar atmosphere behaves very differently,” says Garate-Lopez.

However, it is not really “at the end of the winter”, but the second half. The Southern Hemisphere Polar Vortex usually occurs from May to December;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"] NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
and the Southern Hemisphere Ozone “Hole” from August to December:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"] NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]

There never was an ozone hole, the area of thinning is on average one third the average level of ozone measured in Dobson units. The term is, like the greenhouse effect, another PR term that underscores the political nature of the claims.
I pointed out to the Canadian Parliamentary Hearing on the matter that ozone is created by a photodisdassociation of oxygen by a portion of the ultraviolet section of sunlight. The assumption was, like with the greenhouse effect, that sunlight was constant. This meant you had no choice but to blame another agent for measured variations. They wanted a human agent and they had one already prepared from the lab experiments of Rowland and Molina. Like the IPCC they got a Nobel prize even though, as I understand, they did did not duplicate the temperature and pressure conditions high over Antarctica. Indeed, at that time they did not even know of the existence of Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSC).
One human link between the ozone scam and the CO2 scam because of deep involvement with both was Susan Solomon.
As Wikipedia notes; “Solomon was the first to propose the chlorofluorocarbon free radical reaction mechanism that is the cause of the Antarctic ozone hole.”
It also notes; “Solomon served as a contributing author for the Third Assessment Report[6] and Co-Chair of Working Group 1 for the Fourth Assessment Report[7] of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[2]”
The Montreal Protocol was touted as proof the Kyoto Protocol could work, but as I pointed out to the Parliamentary committee neither China nor India were willing or required to participate.
Yes, the Ozone issue was a template for the greenhouse issue and just as falsely based and manipulated.

James Ard says: December 11, 2013 at 3:20 pm
The ozone hole hoax was good practice for becoming a climate skeptic. All of the same ingredients; media hype, end of the world predictions and a boogieman that actually benefited mankind.
Yep, a strong sense of Déjà vu, i.e.:
Time – Feb 17, 1992

“What does it mean to redefine one’s relationship to the sky? What will it do to our children’s outlook on life we have to teach them to be afraid to look up?
–Senator Al Gore, Earth in the Balance
The world now knows that danger is shining through the sky. The evidence is overwhelming that the earth’s stratospheric ozone layer–our shield against the sun’s hazardous ultraviolet rays–is being eaten away by man-made chemicals far faster than any scientist had predicted. No longer is the threat just to our future; the threat is here and now. Ground zero is not just the South Pole anymore; ozone holes could soon open over heavily populated regions in the northern hemisphere as well as the southern. This unprecedented assault on the planet’s life-support system could have horrendous long-term effects on human health, animal life, the plants that support the food chain and just about every other strand that makes up the delicate web of nature. And it is too late to prevent the damage, which will worsen for years to come. The best the world can hope for is to stabilize ozone loss soon after the turn of the century.
If any doubters remain, their ranks dwindled last week. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, along with scientists from several institutions, announced startling findings from atmospheric studies done by a modified spy-plane and an orbiting satellite. As the two craft crossed the northern skies last month, they discovered record-high concentrations of chlorine monoxide (CIO), a chemical by-product of the chlorofluoro-carbons (CFCs) known to be the chief agents of ozone destruction.
Although the results were preliminary, they were so disturbing that NASA went public a month earlier than planned, well before the investigation could be completed Previous studies had already shown that ozone levels have declined 4% to 8% over the northern hemisphere in the past decade. But the latest data imply that the ozone layer over some regions, including the northernmost parts of the U.S., Canada, Europe and Russia, could be temporarily depleted in the late winter and early spring by as much as 40%. That would be almost as bad as the 50% ozone loss recorded over Antarctica. If a huge northern ozone hole does not in fact open up in 1992, it could easily do so a year or two later. Says Michael Kurylo, NASA’s manager of upper-atmosphere research: “Everybody should be alarmed about this. It’s far worse than we thought.”

I may be wrong about this, but it seems like I read that Freon (R-22) was too heavy to make it to the ozone hole and therefore unable to destroy the ozone hole. I do know this cheap refrigerant was banned and replaced by Puron (R-410a) which, by the way, is not pure because it is a very potent greenhouse gas.
I do know this, soon after Freon was banned I read about studies which showed how the ozone hole was affected by the angle of the sun. Then I believe I read something here on WUWT that how the ozone hole was only discovered when satellites started monitoring it and the assumption was the hole was man-made.

Dodgy Geezer says December 11, 2013 at 3:54 pm

I had heard that the main reason that the Protocol was agreed was that DuPont suddenly changed their minds and supported it. And that this was because their patents on CFCs were about to run out,

An attempt by somebody to ‘debunk’ this aspect; it would appear that the patents for such actually ran out in the 1950’s:
“R-12 Retrofitting: Are we really doing it because DuPont’s patent for Freon® ran out?”

john robertson

This might explain the rather strange statement the IPCC team members made, that they have a problem communicating “the science”.
They do sound bewildered and frustrated, as their methods worked so well in the ozone scare, perhaps they do not understand why the CO2 scare is failing so miserably.
The longer the ozone hole persists the more it looks to me that we the public were stampeded into the Montreal Protocol on emotion not science.
For the personal gain of a few agitators.
Same methods with CO2, no baseline measurements, imaginary effects and extending verification timelines into the future, every time nothing changes.

Bob Armstrong says December 11, 2013 at 5:54 pm
20 years ago Dixy Lee Ray in “Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense?”

Yup, beginning in Part One “The Air above us”, in Chapter 3 tilted “Stratospheric Ozone and The “Hole”” on page 28 where the subtitle reads: “Now You See it; Now You Don’t” …

TalentKeyHole Mole

Kind of like trying to compare land survey measurement where the measurements, old and new, have no benchmarks nor any common, i.e. joint benchmark system by which to make a comparison. Therefore the old and the new are equally rubbish.
Not to worry.
CFC’s like CO2 have nothing to do with the physics of the problem.
btw: Luuza from luuzaville Hansen showed his face today for the Fart-iers of UgoFysics but behind massive security and quarantine. I did not attend. Heard from others he was slurring and miss-pronouncing words and otherwise showing his majesty navy ship a garbage scow of ill repute. Serves ’em right. Costing the AGU the entire top floor of the Marriott, tickets to the Seahawks-49ers game, [trimmed uncalled for] and demanding Exec-level Fed pay scale per hour and health benefits and 401(k) and 403(l) retirement entitlements.
Likely our dues will increase to $100 in 2014 to cover the scandal.
One day the membership will wake up and realize that the AGU President can’t blame Vietnam and agent orange for her “disabilities” any more.
[Yes, you’re angry. Watch your language nevertheless. Mod]

Mark Hladik

Occam’s Razor at work:
We have two competing hypotheses:
1) Most of the “ozone-depleting” chemicals are produced in the Northern Hemisphere. They would have to travel almost half-way around the Earth to get to the stratosphere above Antarctica, where they do their dastardly deed (but not until they arrive in the vicinity of the South Pole).
2) In his epic work on natural climate and natural climate change, the late Marcel Leroux wondered about Mt. Erebus. It would seem that this volcano has been in almost continuous eruption, for at least several hundred years (spanning the time humans have known about the existence of Antarctica). Now, Mt. Erebus is almost directly under the center of the south polar ozone “hole”.
Last time I checked, various compounds of Chlorine were constituents of volcanic gasses.
So, which is the simpler hypothesis?


Forget CO2, CFCs and whatever as this is worse than any catastrophists have thought of-
We need all the resources we can lay our hands on to concrete over this lot and fast.

It’s very hard to make policy when changes and outcomes can be decades away. of course, that leads to panic and that’s what the climate change debate is mainly comprised of – panic on the one hand and ‘wait and see’ on the other. Either way – we’re doomed!

It begins (Fair use excerpt for discussion purposes):

Who holds the trade marks and patents for Fr eon?
We know that the registration for the trade mark “Fr eon” was filed on December 8, 1931 and registered May 10, 1932. It was issued for “Fluor
inated Hydrocarbons Used As Refrigerants, Propellants and Fire Extinguishing Preparations,” and was first used in commerce December 1, 1931.
The registrant was Kinetic Chemicals, Inc. of Wilmington, Delaware, which became E I d Pont De Ne mours and Company.
… After a series of fatal accidents in the 1920s when methyl chloride leaked out of refrigerators, a search for a less toxic replacement
begun as a collaborative effort of three American corporations – Frigid aire, General Motors, and Du Pont. C FCs were first synthesized in 1928
by Thomas Midgley, Jr. of General Motors, as safer chemicals for refrigerators used in large commercial applications.
Frigid aire was issued the first patent, number 1,886,339, for the formula for C FCs on December 31, 1928. In 1930, General Motors and Du Pont
formed the Kinetic Chemical Company to produce Fr eon (a Du Pont trade name for C FCs) in large quantities. By 1935 Frigidaire and its
competitors had sold 8 million new refrigerators in the United States using Fr eon-12 (C FC-12) made by the Kinetic Chemical Company and those
companies that were licensed to manufacture this compound.

So, worst case, take the 1935 date and add 20 years (patent lifetime) and the result is 1955. The patent, if valid in 1935, would have expired
in 1955 (if not before because of an earlier patent filing/grant date).

Martin C

ALLRIGHT ! Let’s bring back R-22 ( . .or do I have that wrong, is it R-12) instead of R-134, for our automobiles, and get the price back donw to $1 per can or so . . .
. .geeez, I remembering looking into this, having to go to the Library to pull articles on the ozone over Antarctica, research by Dr. Dobson, who if I recall correctly, the ‘Dobson Units’ of ozone were named after, realizing this CFC scare was total BS.
Then with the Global warming, thinking that the ozone scare was a ‘warm-up’ to the CAGW garbage ( . .and an article by W. Happer of Princeton seemed to confirm that ( . .I KNOW i saved it as a link somewhere – just can’t find it now . . ).
WE’ve got to put an end to all this alarmism real soon . . .