Alarmism: Claiming Normal as Abnormal Began on a Global Scale with Ozone

Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

“In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’ All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.” George Orwell

There it was in reality! The headline I had tongue-in-cheek considered writing for a national newspaper.

Melting in the Arctic reached an all-time high in June: Ice has been disappearing at a rate of 29,000 square miles a day.

This is near the average daily rate of melt in the brief Arctic summer, but few people know this is natural. Approximately 10 million km2 of ice melts every summer in approximately 145 days, which is a melt rate of 68,965 km2 (26,627 square miles) per day. Besides, the variability is wide as a 2011 Journal of Geophysical Research article explains,

“The perennial (September) Arctic sea ice cover exhibits large interannual variability, with changes of over a million square kilometers from one year to the next. Here we explore the role of changes in Arctic cyclone activity, and related factors, in driving these pronounced year-to-year changes in perennial sea ice cover.”

In addition, determination of full ice cover is problematic (Figure 1) so different analysts get different results. It is further complicated by meltwater on the ice surface that the satellite reads as open water (Figure 2). Alarmists claim these are a sign of warming, but they ignore the fact the satellite readings of ice cover are compromised.

clip_image002

Figure 1 What percentage would you assign?

clip_image004

Figure 2 Meltwater on the ice, called freshets on river ice.

It is another example of alarmists and uninformed media reporting a natural situation as unnatural. It is a lie of omission because they only presented facts that suited their story, but lying and deception are now standard and condoned practice for some people. Apparently for them the end justifies the means.

With the introduction of the new paradigm of environmentalism and the subset global warming, natural events were presented as unnatural. The strategy provided a ‘no lose’ situation. People were easily misled because they don’t know what is normal. The few with some knowledge were easily marginalized as skeptics or conspiracy theorists. The sequence is to announce the imaginary problem, produce false science to make it ‘real’, introduce political strategies that do nothing except cost jobs and inconvenience people, and wait. When conditions return to “normal,” you claim victory for your science, policies, and wisdom. It is like the ice hockey defender who was considered good when he was so slow he missed the attacker’s feint and caught him coming back.

Recent political events in Washington, Britain, and Europe remind us of Orwell’s insightful novel Animal Farm. Lying is a constant of politics, but it is now legally endorsed by the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ), more appropriately the Department of Injustice. These political traits became standard for environmentalists and global warming advocates with the introduction of claims that humans were the cause of most environmental and climate change.

clip_image006

 

The characteristics of politics described by Orwell were manifest in the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) beginning in November 2009. On the cover of their 2010 book Climategate, Mosher and Fuller wrote that,

“The Team led by Phil Jones and Michael Mann, in attempts to shape the debate and influence public policy:

· Actively worked to evade McIntyre’s Freedom of Information requests, deleting emails, documents, and even climate data

· Tried to corrupt the peer-review principles that are the mainstay of modern science, reviewing each other’s work, sabotaging efforts of opponents trying to publish their own work, and threatening editors of journals who didn’t bow to their demands

· Changed the shape of their own data in materials shown to politicians charged with changing the shape of our world, ‘hiding the decline’ that showed their data could not be trusted.”

Those descriptions fit Orwell’s observations. There is no doubt what was done and who did it. The problem was compounded and the practices condoned in the cover-up that followed. The Atlantic editor Clive Crook wrote,

I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.”

Unfortunately, Crook’s remarks are similar to those made about the testimony given by FBI Director James Comey before the US Congress hearing on July 7, 2016. The Director listed all the lies, deceptions, misdirection’s, abuse of procedures, and attacks on people and groups who questioned or challenged Hillary Clinton. He then concluded there was no criminality nor requirement for accountability or punishment. He condoned the behavior just like the groups set up to investigate Climategate. The behavior condoned by Comey will continue because it is now ‘officially’ justified. We know it will continue because it has in the environmentalist and AGW communities about global warming and ozone.

The CRU debacle was not the first application of “lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia” to advance a false narrative for a political agenda. It began with the “hole-in-the-ozone” issue. It was the first global-scale environmental deception. It was the first deliberately orchestrated misuse of science by a small group of people (cabal) using bureaucracies and the media for a political agenda. The public still doesn’t know there is no scientific basis for what was claimed. AGW proponents can’t let that truth emerge because it would undermine the larger ongoing global warming issue.

The revelation that the so-called “ozone hole” was recovering and almost back to “normal” was predictable. Not surprisingly, the ozone recovery story appeared under the name of Susan Solomon, a principal architect of the original ozone story and a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration employee, described by Wikipedia as follows;

Her work formed the basis of the U.N. Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to protect the ozone layer by regulating damaging chemicals. Solomon served the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. She was a contributing author for the Third Assessment Report. She was also Co-Chair of Working Group I for the Fourth Assessment Report.

The ozone story reappears now because the climate change story is losing momentum; Paris COP 21 commitments are failing; polls show little or no public concern; and the public attitude to lying politicians is spreading. The ozone story reinvigorates the climate deception by claiming the originators were correct. We were correct and saved the planet with the Montreal Protocol so you must listen to us on the climate issue.

In December 2015 I explained the purpose of the Ozone scare as a trial run for the CO2 scare and the deception to follow. It had all the components; a false claim of change being due to human activity, it was false because it assumed incorrectly that UV radiation, which creates ozone, was constant; use of the claim for a political agenda; and manufactured scientific evidence to support demands for political action.

The Ozone Issue Template

The Montreal Protocol is a template, but not for pushing the need for a Climate Protocol. It is a template

· For how ozone destruction by human produced Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) was a test run for the deception that human CO2 is causing global warming.

· Not because it worked, but because it was completely unnecessary, cost a lot of money and created a multitude of other problems.

· Because humans were blamed for atmospheric ozone destruction without evidence, while natural processes were ignored.

· For using a global environmental issue as justification for establishing a world government.

· For establishing the efficacy of claiming natural events as unnatural.

· For allowing bureaucrats to create and control the entire process outside of normal scientific methods, codes of conduct, and accountability.

· For establishing how bureaucrats could control the political agenda on environmental and climate issues.

The Montreal Protocol appeared to work because there was no problem in the first place. Variations in ozone were perfectly natural. If they don’t know this, they are scientifically incompetent. But that doesn’t matter because they need its false success for political reasons.

Nurtured by environmental hysteria and the determination to show all changes in the natural world are due to human activity, the claim that CFCs were destroying ozone changed from an unproven hypothesis to a scientific fact. All the other ingredients were at hand; the big corporation; the dangerous manufactured product; the luxury of refrigeration improving the quality of life for rich people at the expense of the poor and the environment; and the fear of increased skin cancer, especially among children. The political juggernaut was underway as fearful people demanded political action. As H. L. Mencken said,

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the public alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

Most actions did not and could not deal with the problem. One geo-engineering solution proposed to produce ozone at ground level and pump it into the ozone layer. Then someone pointed out that this required more energy than humans produce in total.

There are still no “holes in the ozone”, but the area of thinning over Antarctica continues to vary due to natural conditions. As the climate change deception falters, the counterattack builds. Out of desperation, they fall back on the illusionary “success” of the Montreal Protocol, thus risking the exposure of that charade. Orwell knew the fate of those who expose or even question the charade. He wrote,

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

Advertisements

221 thoughts on “Alarmism: Claiming Normal as Abnormal Began on a Global Scale with Ozone

  1. The Montreal Protocol is a good example of fixing a probem that doesn’t exist as stated. I still think there was not a long enough baseline to deterimine what the natural variations were in ozone levels before they discovered a crisis and assigned a cause.

    • The ‘Ozone hole’ and its ‘solution’ was a forerunner of AGW. It was a test, to see how susceptible the world population could be to control by a despotic few in the UN (etc). Not to mention how many refrigeration manufacturers cleaned up because of the need to switch to non-CFC coolants.

      • ‘Not to mention how many refrigeration manufacturers cleaned up because of the need to switch to non-CFC coolants.’
        Prove it.

      • I doubt that the ozone hole scam was actually designed as a forerunner of CAGW. That smells a bit too much of conspiracy theory because its perpetrators would have had to be remarkably prescient. My impression is that it was simply a scam in its own right, and that its success then encouraged others to start the larger CAGW scam.

      • Not to mention pilots can no longer see where to land.
        Aircraft were once fitted with rain repellant buttons, which delivered a whole cc of repellent to the windows while on the approach. After a squirt you could suddenly see the entire runway without wipers – they were that effective. (Billy Boeing’s wipers are hopeless. The old variety made so much noise you could not communicate. The new versions got rid of the noise, by making the wipers not work…)
        But due to the ozone scare, all aviation rain repellants were banned and disabled. So now pilots land by braille, or by dropping a plumb-line out the window to see how high they are. ;-). (Hint, autolands are not available at most small airports.
        In addition, all BCF fire extinguishants have been banned for the same CFC reasons, and yet this is the only extinguishant powerful enough for aviation use. Aircraft still have BCF extinguishers, but only because the fluid is being recycled and reused, but stocks are dwindling as the number of aircraft in use grows. And since the cost of BCF is increasing, there have been several instances of BFC fra-d, where rogue manufacturers dilute the BCF to make it go further.
        So thanks to the greens, flights today are much more dangerous. The reports of landings that were difficult or went around because of heavy rain on the windscreen are endless. While the prospect of aircraft having diluted extinguishers is a disaster waiting to happen.
        Send your letters of thanks to Greenleace and the WWF.
        Ralph

      • Gamecock on July 9, 2016 at 1:48 pm
        ‘Not to mention how many refrigeration manufacturers cleaned up because of the need to switch to non-CFC coolants.’
        Prove it.
        ______________________________
        Yeah, that ‘prov it’ always does the trick :
        let’em run against the evidence of spreading refrigerator startups in silicone valley and South Africa since Kyoto!

      • I doubt that the ozone hole scam was actually designed as a forerunner of CAGW. That smells a bit too much of conspiracy theory because its perpetrators would have had to be remarkably prescient. My impression is that it was simply a scam in its own right, and that its success then encouraged others to start the larger CAGW scam.

        I agree completely. It’s giving these people too much credit and demonizing them to too great an extent at the same time. It’s worth noting also that all of this is occurring in the wake of Silent Spring. In this environment, there are all sorts of positive reinforcements as well as models to imitate – and this is probably a sufficient explanation (as opposed to a Chomskyite vision of ultimate manipulation and control – although this sort of thing is also probably part of the mix as well).

      • As a refrigeration contractor and system designer I have to say that it was all a big pain in the butt. ODP testing, redesign of systems, strict, nearly unworkable rules on releases. Some equipment manufacturers went broke. They were perfectly happy before selling stuff that hadn’t changed for 30 years. Refrigerants now cost 10 times what they did before. If that was all for nothing, I’m pissed!

        • I understand. I was involved finding an alternative to Freon cleaning solvent used after soldering pc boards.
          I am also stunned to find that the ozone alarm was false. I do think that the person first postulating the ‘problem’ might not have realised all the facts [as I see it today]

      • Mike Jonas – I came a cross a not-so-bright young women who was an arts student and activist in about 1990. She insisted that the two were the same thing. I have no doubts that they were linked and she couldn’t distinguish between the scientific positions and talking points.

      • Gamecock: Easy. Existing equipment can’t use the new chemicals. The old chemicals rapidly became scarce and more expensive making the maintenance of older equipment more expense.
        For many users, it rapidly became less expensive to dump your old equipment, even though it still worked and buy new equipment that could use the new chemicals.

      • ralfellis: The Challenger accident was caused because NASA switched to a non-CFC foam for the external tank. With the old formula, there had never been a problem with chunks falling off during liftoff.

      • Columbia again. If you believe the wiki…
        The composition of the foam insulation had been changed in 1997 to exclude the use of freon, a chemical that is suspected to cause ozone depletion; while NASA was exempted from legislation phasing out CFCs, the agency chose to change the foam nonetheless. STS-107 used an older “lightweight tank” (a design that was succeeded by the “superlightweight tank”, both being upgrades from the original space shuttle external tank) where the foam was sprayed on to the larger cylindrical surfaces using the newer freon-free foam. However, the bipod ramps were manufactured from BX-250 foam which was excluded from the EPA regulations and did use the original freon formula. The composition change did not contribute to the accident.[46]

    • So CFC’s the original magic molecules that managed to mass migrate from the NH to SH and magically get lifted to the stratosphere to ultimately sunburn some penguins. Did anyone bother to ask why the ozone situation wasn’t hugely worse in the arctic?
      I agree with Mr. Ball that pieces of the CFC trial balloon still exist; particularly where the “devastating effects” are in remote and generally inaccessible places.
      Though the CFC non-problem scare may be a good model for CAGW, the fact is that CFC’s were (in a relative sense) easy to squash; CO2… not so much as most everything useful we do including breathing generates it. Ultimately this overreach is going to implode when minimal to no or negative correlation with temperature is discovered. You’d think 20 years non-correlation would be enough but speculative bubbles seem to last way longer than most reasonable people would expect.

    • Susan Solomon owes virtually her entire career and prominence to the Ozone Scam. It made her a political heavyweight for the IPCC scams to follow.

    • Of course they’ve never demonstrated that there was a time when there was no Ozone hole.

      • Mwhite
        I asked that very question to Cambridge university and the Max plank institute around 2010 .
        They said that instruments that could measure the ozone hole first became available in the mid 1950’s but were unaware whether holes might have previously existed but their models seemed to imdicate it was a new problem. They did say they hoped to conduct experiments to determine if a hole could have previously existed and I guess now is the time to find out if these were carried out.
        If mr Connelly happens along here he might have some knowledge of the situation as I believe he was involved in Antarctic experiments.
        The hole is at its largest in October so it is premature to claim it is shrinking especially as it was around its fourth largest only a year or so ago.
        It is said the hole should disappear by the middle of the century so I guess the jury is out as to whether modern holes are unique and whether or not the current one will disappear as expected by the middle of the century.
        Tonyb

      • Observations made since 1957 suggest there was no hole at that time. They also suggest that the ozone layer above the Antarctic was much thicker and had gradually thinned from 300 DU in the 1950s to around 200 DU in the late 1970s and subsequently to around 100 DU more recently.
        CFCs are fairly long lasting in the atmosphere so any increase in the ozone layer (reduction in the hole) wasn’t going to happen overnight. There has apparently been around 5% reduction from the peak concentration which is consistent with the trend in ozone increase.
        I’d hesitate to state that there is no doubt that CFCs caused stratospheric ozone depletion but the data and evidence strongly suggest that CFCs are at least a factor,

      • Do you have a reference to this ‘data’ from the 50s ?
        This is something I see claimed repeatedly but I have never seen anyone produce the slightest reference to a paper a data source or anything that suggests that they have checked out the claim.
        Obviously the data will be very sparse at that time and probably from the coastal research stations, so we need to look at whether this is the usual apples and oranges warmista claims. Current total column values are nearer to 200 than the 100 you mention. The ‘hole’ is 200 instead of 300 : not exactly anyone’s idea of what the word hole means anywhere outside climate alarmist mythology.
        Hre is what the size of the 220DU ozone “hole” history looks like with a light low-pass gaussian filter.
        https://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/ozone-hole_lp.png
        The rapid increase in the 80s and 90s and flattening since can not possibly be due to the trivial reductions in remaining atmospheric CFCs that have occurred since Montreal came into force:
        It very likely has more to do volcanic activity. NASA state that ozone was reduced by 5 to 8% after Mt Pinatubo.

      • Greg July 10, 2016 at 12:35 am
        Do you have a reference to this ‘data’ from the 50s ?
        This is something I see claimed repeatedly but I have never seen anyone produce the slightest reference to a paper a data source or anything that suggests that they have checked out the claim.

        Try reading this for a good overview.
        http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/361/1469/769
        Current total column values are nearer to 200 than the 100 you mention. The ‘hole’ is 200 instead of 300 : not exactly anyone’s idea of what the word hole means anywhere outside climate alarmist mythology.
        No the cause of the ‘hole’ is the O3 in the 14 – 22 km altitude range being degraded to zero from its former value, resulting in a drop in the total column ozone at that location. That’s a hole in anyone’s language!
        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ozwv/ozsondes/spo/iadv/SPO_2015-10-12.21.png

      • mwhite/tonyb says
        Of course they’ve never demonstrated that there was a time when there was no Ozone hole.
        henry says
        would be nice to get a comment from Phil. about that….
        I have ample evidence showing that production of ozone\peroxide\N-oxide TOA follows Gleisberg/Hale – solar cycles.

      • Observations are not permitted. Models only need apply.
        More seriously, some of this is a simple result of finally being able to record something that you could not earlier record well. The sheeple look at it and some Millerite Quack decides that it is caused by the “gods” being angry with some sort of human action that must then stop immediately. Further, the Rev. Quack believes that having discovered the gods displeasure with mankind, that his/her high Quackness is uniquely able to satisfy the gods and revert humanity to the previous state of approval of the gods. The Rev. Quack then usually proceeds to recruit various priests and priestesses who divine the will of the gods with reference to objects that are only held by the Church of Quackentology. These priests and priestesses are usually housed in some sort of quackery and supported by tithes now laid on the populace at large. For a separate contribution, the Church usually dispenses indulgences that will relieve the contributor from some sort of imagined future state of “sin” for a limited time or reduce their stay in some sort of hypothetical in between world.
        Sadly, any student of history can tell you that this is a repeated theme. The origin of the very word “quack” as a reference to a doctor who would show up and not be able to really do anything is thought to have originated with the plague in 1348. The medical people of the time were clever enough to construct a sort of hazmat suit that they sometimes wore when they visited patients. The openings for the eyes were protected by small pieces of glass. The suits had a long “beak” that was filled with flowers/herbs/spices to ward off the smell and protect the wearer from the “bad air”. They may have indeed been effective for pneumonic and septicemic plague but not otherwise. The medicine that the “quacks” had to offer was not effective against any of it. The Church at the time was of the opinion that the plague was a punishment from god.
        There is little new under the sun. Ecclesiastes was right.

      • Volcanic eruptions can spur ozone loss. The general trend is towards recovery but CFCs are still at 95% of their peak level in the atmosphere. The 2015 Calbuco eruption in Chile would have contributed to a significant ozone depletion.

      • The “general trend” is to less volcanic activity to. By the usual standards of climatology that is sufficient ‘proof’ of attribution and that we need to ban volcanoes.
        Here is the same data I posted above without the filter:
        https://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/ozone-hole_ts3.png
        Someone need to explain what happened in 2003. The largest change in the whole record. What was that, a sudden drop in CFCs ?
        clearly CFC are only a small part of the story. There are natural variations that are far more important. This is nothing more than the usual activist-scientist crap where they draw a straight line through two datasets and conclude a spurious attribution which fits their alarmist, political worldview.

      • Greg suggests that:

        Someone need to explain what happened in 2003.

        Greg, do CMEs have any effect on the ozone in earth’s atmosphere?
        Given the fact that CME activity began increasing significantly in 2000 and peaked in 2003 ….. correlates with your Ozone Hole “size” graph, …… to wit:

        On 14 July 2000, the Coronal Mass Ejection (CME) hurled by a X5.7 solar flare provoked an extreme (G5 level) geomagnetic storm the next day. Known as the Bastille day event, this storm caused damage to GPS systems and some power companies.[citation needed] Auroras were visible as far south as Texas.[8] Another major aurora display was observed on 1 April 2001, due to a coronal mass ejection hitting the Earth’s magnetosphere. Auroras were observed as far south as Mexico and South Europe. A large solar flare (the second-most powerful ever recorded) occurred on 2 April 2001, an X20-class, but the blast was directed away from Earth.
        In late October 2003, a series of large solar flares occurred. A X17.2-class flare ejected on 28 October 2003 produced auroras visible as far south as Florida and Texas. A G5 level geomagnetic storm blasted the Earth’s magnetosphere the next two days.[9] A few days later, the largest solar flare ever measured with instruments occurred on 4 November; initially measured at X28, it was later upgraded to an X45-class.[10][11] This flare was not Earth-oriented and thus only resulted in high-latitude auroras,
        Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle_23

      • 4 years ago it set a record.
        It has shrunk since then.
        So obviously banning CFC’s 30 years ago caused the size of the hole to shrink.

  2. If we only had ONE 1 “sophisticated ” politician (1 that could understand facts and figures )

    • I don’t think the article on the USGS data manipulation supports your claim that the USGS knew specifically the ozone hole issue was bogus. Can you provide primary evidence? Peer-reviewed article?

    • It isn’t the least bit difficult to make ozone. The problem is that it is unhealthy at the surface, but necessary in the stratosphere between us and the sun. The idea that lightning creates ozone does not change the basic mechanics.

  3. Neither pole receives enough UVb or UVc (solar) to create or support the inter-conversion process.

    • Which is the basic fallacy of the Great Ozone Lie and really shouldn’t need much in the way of empirical support. The hole is there because the Antarctic doesn’t get much sun. Who knew?

      • In 1543, Copernicus rightly established the sun (at 99% of the mass and 99.99% of all available energy) at the center of the solar system. For the last 75 years modern day shamans posing as Eco-friendly climate scientists have systemically placed man’s activities as the primary causality.
        In essence, post-modern science has reverted us back to a pre-renaissance view of the solar system.
        We may not be conducting human sacrifices on South American temples, but the shamans are quietly freezing to death the most vulnerable in our society under icy windmills.

      • Nobody, because it isn’t true. Hint, in the winter when there is no sunlight over the antarctic the O3 concentration stays high, when the sun rises in the spring it is the UV light that destroys the O3.

        • Sorry Phil.
          I don’t agree with that. It shows that you don’t understand the basic processes involved/ you just want to go with the published ‘investigations’ and rely on them only, instead of relying on your own reasoning.
          Hear this: The sun produces and radiates particles, some so energetic that if there were no atmosphere, or almost no atmosphere, like on Mars, it would kill you. Hence, going to Mars is not such a good idea, until you have created an earth-like atmosphere….
          What prevents us from being hurt by those particles are the reactions of those particles with the basic compounds of the atmosphere to form ozone, peroxides and N-oxides. Once formed , this formation is irreversible. Once formed these compounds than carry on oxidising other components that happen to be in the atmosphere. …. As far as I remember my chemistry, ozone is a stronger oxidiser than chlorine?

      • HenryP July 12, 2016 at 8:10 am
        Sorry Phil.
        I don’t agree with that. It shows that you don’t understand the basic processes involved/ you just want to go with the published ‘investigations’ and rely on them only, instead of relying on your own reasoning.

        Whether you agree or not Henry it’s the fact!
        Hear this: The sun produces and radiates particles, some so energetic that if there were no atmosphere, or almost no atmosphere, like on Mars, it would kill you. Hence, going to Mars is not such a good idea, until you have created an earth-like atmosphere….
        What prevents us from being hurt by those particles are the reactions of those particles with the basic compounds of the atmosphere to form ozone, peroxides and N-oxides. Once formed, this formation is irreversible.

        If that were true Henry we’d never lose any O3!
        Here’s a set of O3 profiles above the south pole during 8 years from 2002-2009:
        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/spo_oz/SouthPoleMin_profile_2002_2009.png
        The red curve is the average over the winter when there is no sun there, typically peaks between 15 and 20 km with a pO3 of ~15 mPa. A couple of months later (blue curve) it’s dropped to the minimum in the presence of the sun, most years to zero mPa! At the same time and altitude there’s a peak in ClO, a product of the O3 depletion mechanism. By December pO3 is back up to ~15 mPa as the temperature has increased and the sunlight is peaking.
        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ozwv/ozsondes/spo/iadv/SPO_2015-12-16.21.png
        In the late 50s the total O3 stayed constant at around 300 DU throughout the winter until it increased in November as the vortex collapsed, no minimum (‘hole’).

      • HenryP July 12, 2016 at 12:27 pm
        Phil. says
        “If that were true Henry we’d never lose any O3”
        Henry says
        All my graphs on ozone [as an example of all compounds formed TOA] show that ozone has been increasing since around 1995, both in the Nh and in the Sh. Check it out!!!
        e.g.
        first part of my comment here (Arosa, Nh)

        Henry every spring above the Antarctic as shown above O3 is destroyed.

      • @Phil.
        I think you misunderstand me. Or want to.
        I said: once the most energetic particles from the sun have formed the ozone, peroxide and N-oxides, that process [reaction] most surely is irreversible. IOW once formed you cannot get the original oxygen /OH /nitrogen back and shoot that particle just back to the sun…..
        here you can see that ozone is increasing from 1995 in the sh
        http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/ozone_hole_minimum.gif
        Unfortunately I have no data there in that graph from 2006 but I assume that the curve will continue to go up until now.
        What happens to the ozone/peroxide/N-oxides once they have been manufactured by the sun’s most energetic rays is a completely different story. For example, ozone and peroxide are very strong oxidizers, so they will be reduced back to oxygen and water, respectively, once they make contact with other reactive molecules. If there is a seasonal trend in the yearly data, there must be some logical reasons for it. IOW normal reactions with various atmospheric compounds at certain temperatures…. In any case, nothing [much] to do with CFC’s.
        My point is still that I would expect to find more OH radicals above the SH oceans, because they receive more heat than the NH oceans. I am willing to bet that nature has balanced the “ozone hole” with peroxide. Most likely, peroxides are formed preferentially to ozone if more OH radicals are present.
        The absorption spectrum of peroxide and ozone are almost identical, so once formed they do exactly the same thing: restrict some UV to warm the oceans [because they have absorption in certain UV regions]
        more peroxide and more ozone means less heating [of the oceans]
        So, if we all could go back now, and measure the peroxide content exactly inside the hole and around it, I think you will all get a surprise. I am currently unemployed, so I am available to assist you with those investigations.
        best wishes
        henry

      • henryp July 13, 2016 at 6:01 am
        @Phil.
        I think you misunderstand me. Or want to.
        I said: once the most energetic particles from the sun have formed the ozone, peroxide and N-oxides, that process [reaction] most surely is irreversible. IOW once formed you cannot get the original oxygen /OH /nitrogen back and shoot that particle just back to the sun…..

        In the field of chemical kinetics (which is the subject here), ‘reversible’ has a very specific meaning and the one you’re using isn’t correct. To be reversible the reverse reaction isn’t required to release the energy in the exact form in which it was received, so the reaction is reversible.
        here you can see that ozone is increasing from 1995 in the sh
        Unfortunately I have no data there in that graph from 2006 but I assume that the curve will continue to go up until now.

        Not at issue although ‘bouncing around’ might be a more accurate description (see below) as anticipated by Rowland ten years ago in his Proc Roy Soc paper.
        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/spo_oz/spoOctAve.png
        What happens to the ozone/peroxide/N-oxides once they have been manufactured by the sun’s most energetic rays is a completely different story. For example, ozone and peroxide are very strong oxidizers, so they will be reduced back to oxygen and water, respectively, once they make contact with other reactive molecules. If there is a seasonal trend in the yearly data, there must be some logical reasons for it. IOW normal reactions with various atmospheric compounds at certain temperatures…. In any case, nothing [much] to do with CFC’s.
        On the contrary, the appearance of a ClO peak in the same location as the O3 depletion over the S Pole indicates involvement go CFCs. The seasonal behavior is explained by this region being coincident with the low temperatures favoring PSC formation during the winter (<-78ºC).

        • clearly, looking at your graph, you can see the ozone following a hyperbole. 86-87 years from the beginning of your graph you will be back to where we were. [ozone still rising]
          Gleissberg was right.
          http://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf
          tables II and III
          there is no man made warming and there is no man made ozone hole.
          go figure. go measure. yourself.
          end of story.

      • HenryP July 13, 2016 at 1:19 pm
        clearly, looking at your graph, you can see the ozone following a hyperbole. 86-87 years from the beginning of your graph you will be back to where we were. [ozone still rising]

        Henry, I don’t see a hyperbola, and if there was it wouldn’t go back up, perhaps you mean a parabola?

  4. During the ramp-up to the year 2000, there were two voices: Y2K alarmists and moderates. The alarmists made lots of money; the moderates did not. Running a scare racket can be very lucrative.

  5. The Director listed all the lies, deceptions, misdirection’s, abuse of procedures, and attacks on people and groups who questioned or challenged Hillary Clinton…..
    Involuntary manslaughter is legal now……

    • Comey and the State Department IG laid out a reasonable case for determining a “reasonable person’s” intent – being so “extremely careless”, having only a Personal Server and Devices, refusing a State Department account or Device, destroying evidence, etc.- then he basically argued that Hillary wasn’t ~”sophisticated enough” to know her own intent – or to ever have one! Next he eliminated Gross Negligence because of “Precedent” and because he thought it wasn’t “Constitutional”.
      Thus Comey proved himself not “sophisticated enough” to really understand or at least wonder why the Espionage Law was there in the first place, that a Trial can lead to an actual test of a Law’s Constitutionality, and that people are convicted all the time for the violation of similar Laws, perhaps including just running a Stop Sign. I want my money back!
      So Comey skated away free from criticism according to his own constructions!
      Some Pigs are more equal and more unsophisticated than the rest of us. So we get convicted and pay the extremely careless bills for our “betters”. “It’s only fair” or “just”, or an Animal Farm. After all, wasn’t Orwell “intending” to lay out how a Good Farm should operate? Dey weally weally wuvs it! But I want my Constitution Back!

      • As a sitting Senator from the State of New York, Hillary joined in unanimous roll call support of house bill 2458, known as FISMA
        https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/2458
        The bill was sponsored by 39 democrats and one republican. The purpose of FISMA was to make sure the Federal Records Act kept up with modern technology (e-mail, web, e-commerce). Further, the democrats wanted to ensure Congress could effectively perform its oversight responsibility for executive agencies during the Bush administration.
        Agency directors had specific duties under this law
        “Directs the head of each agency to: (1) be responsible for providing information security protections commensurate with the risk and magnitude of the harm resulting from unauthorized access and for complying with information security standards and guidelines; (2) ensure that senior agency officials provide information security for the information and information systems that support operations and assets; (3) delegate to the agency CIO the authority to ensure compliance with the regulations imposed under this Act; (4) ensure that the agency has trained personnel sufficient to assist the agency in complying with Act requirements; and (5) ensure that the agency CIO reports annually on the effectiveness of the agency information security program.”
        NIST further refined the regulations under this law to require each agency to provide a report to Congress on EVERY system of record for the agency (including 3rd party and contractors) that identified the system and an annual audit on what security controls were implemented to ensure cyber security.
        For Comey to not hold Hillary to the highest standard for cyber awareness and compliance in light of her participation in establishing the laws she broke is indefensible.
        May the U.S Constitution rest in peace.

      • Me thinks that most everyone is oblivious to the “BIG STORY” that pertains to Hillary Clinton’s server “wiping” erasing of tens of thousands of her and Bill’s money seeking E-mail correspondence between themselves and the wealthy donors, banks, corporations and government entities, …… both foreign and domestic, …. so the really import issues that has never been discussed is …. what were all “names” on their E-mail Contact list?
        Given the assumed fact that both Hillary and Bill were engaged in “revenue seeking” E-mail correspondence, ……. via their “unprotected” basement server, ….. with responding “entities” all over the globe pretty much assures one that foreign entities and hackers had access to an “open microphone” to US government Secret and/or Classified information.
        And the FBI is smart enough to figure that out …… and smart enough to not tell Congress, the Media Reporters and the citizens, …… nor to recommend that Hillary be prosecuted, …… maybe because of fear of rioting and burnings or maybe Bill threatened to “tell all” if they prosecuted Hillary.

  6. Thanks to Dr. Tim Ball for another great and detailed expose of the Machiavellian processes of Global Climate manipulations by the Alarmists.

  7. JAXA have it on their website, that they cant trust their sat when melt water is on the surface of ice, it’s considered open water..

  8. Lets not forget the wind earlier this year in the Barents sea, wind blown ice was called “ice melted”

  9. O3 is created by solar rays hitting the atmosphere, so the Antarctic would see less given the angle of earth towards the sun.
    The other Ozone created and destroyed by pollution, is not the ozone we need anyway, that is not O3 and is part of a process that destroys the ozone anyway.

    • Ozone /ˈoʊzoʊn/ (systematically named 1λ1,3λ1-trioxidane and catena-trioxygen), or trioxygen, is an inorganic molecule with the chemical formula O
      3. It is a pale blue gas with a distinctively pungent smell. It is an allotrope of oxygen that is much less stable than the diatomic allotrope O
      2, breaking down in the lower atmosphere to normal dioxygen. Ozone is formed from dioxygen by the action of ultraviolet light and also atmospheric electrical discharges, and is present in low concentrations throughout the Earth’s atmosphere (stratosphere). In total, ozone makes up only 0.6 ppm of the atmosphere.
      Ozone’s odour is sharp, reminiscent of chlorine, and detectable by many people at concentrations of as little as 10 ppb in air. Ozone’s O3 formula was determined in 1865. The molecule was later proven to have a bent structure and to be diamagnetic. In standard conditions, ozone is a pale blue gas that condenses at progressively cryogenic temperatures to a dark blue liquid and finally a violet-black solid. Ozone’s instability with regard to more common dioxygen is such that both concentrated gas and liquid ozone may decompose explosively at elevated temperatures or fast warming to the boiling point.[4] It is therefore used commercially only in low concentrations.
      Ozone is a powerful oxidant (far more so than dioxygen) and has many industrial and consumer applications related to oxidation. This same high oxidising potential, however, causes ozone to damage mucous and respiratory tissues in animals, and also tissues in plants, above concentrations of about 100 ppb. This makes ozone a potent respiratory hazard and pollutant near ground level. However, the ozone layer (a portion of the stratosphere with a bigger concentration of ozone, from two to eight ppm) is beneficial, preventing damaging ultraviolet light from reaching the Earth’s surface, to the benefit of both plants and animals.

    • @ Mark, How does circulation ( jet stream etc.) influence the distribution of Ozone? Or is it too high up? Does not last long as O3? Can you point me somewhere? Thanks.

      • Go to reality348.wordpress.com and there is a heap of observations collated by erl happ using nullschoolearth and more…

    • Ozone mostly forms in the equatorial stratosphere due to high insolation, but then migrates towards the poles with the upper atmospheric large scale circulations like the Hadley Cell. The net result is stratospheric ozone piles up in the mid to high latitudes giving generally higher ozone concentrations than over its equatorial source region.

  10. It’s always intrigued me that three of the biggest scientific frauds of the 20th century were committed by women who, by the way, are now lionized by leftists and progressives.
    Margaret Sanger was an admitted eugenicist who advocated “family planning” for inferior races [her terms]. Welcome Planned Parenthood, who preferentially locates their clinics in low-income, minority-dominant neighborhoods
    Rachel Carson posited the bogus hypothesis that DDT caused damage to bird populations by some mysterious process that allegedly led to thinner egg shells, and the equally bogus contention that DDT causes cancer. Total BS, but her advocacy led to the near-total ban on DDT use worldwide. Consequence: millions of infant deaths (especially in Africa, Latin America, and SE Asia) due to malaria, which would have been prevented by modest DDT application
    And then Susan Solomon and her made-up story about CFCs and stratospheric ozone. She’s not in Sanger and Carson’s league in terms of body count, but she probably bears some responsibility for Vitamin A deficiency (rickets) in western world children as their mothers have been scared into slathering them with SPF99 sunscreen for fear of skin cancer. No one seems to note that the so-called “ozone hole” only occurs in polar regions where essentially no one lives.
    What a bunch of Maroons! [credit Bugs Bunny]

    • Ouch, logic and facts will find no place in our political driven media outlets and our pop culture mentality.
      Well said and please keep it up.

    • Additionally, the hole is largest during the spring not the summer when the sun’s rays strike more directly.

    • https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
      “Inaccurate chromosome number
      In 1923, leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made,[15][16] that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s to the 1950s, this continued to be held based on Painter’s authority,[17][18][19][16] despite subsequent counts totaling the correct number of 23.[15][20] Even textbooks[15] with photos clearly showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24[20] based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs.[21][17]
      This seemingly established number created confirmation bias among researchers, and “most cytologists, expecting to detect Painter’s number, virtually always did so”.[21] Painter’s “influence was so great that many scientists preferred to believe his count over the actual evidence”,[20] to the point that “textbooks from the time carried photographs showing twenty-three pairs of chromosomes, and yet the caption would say there were twenty-four”.[20] Scientists who obtained the accurate number modified[22] or discarded[23] their data to agree with Painter’s count.”
      Scientists are the most susceptible to consensus thinking. CO2 warming is the 24th chromosome pair.

  11. The protocol phased out gases that deplete atmospheric ozone and create the ozone hole over Antarctica in spring. But the gases phased in as replacements are called “super greenhouse gases” by observers such as David Doniger, director of climate and clean air at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a New York-based international environmental advocacy group. They are much worse than carbon dioxide, he says.

    • Shall we call this looking for the next gas to get money form taxpayers? As one gas goes we shall find another even if it is only 1 part per hundred trillion?

    • They were talking about phasing out the HFC’s even before they started introducing them!

  12. The BBC is currently running an article that is incidentally and accidentally highly relevant to climate change alarmism. It is ostensibly about the 1908 Siberian explosion that flattened a huge area of forest, and it quotes K. Florensky in a report on the event: “While I am aware of the advantages of sensational publicity in drawing public attention to a problem, it should be stressed that unhealthy interest aroused as a result of distorted facts and misinformation should never be used as a basis for the furtherance of scientific knowledge.” The very next lines are also interesting: “But that did not stop others coming up with even more imaginative ideas. In 1973 a paper was published in the reputable journal Nature, suggesting that a black hole collided into Earth to cause the explosion.” Reputable journals publishing silly ideas to explain a phenomenon? Surely not!

  13. and you all seem to be forgetting one of the key ingredients of the ozone fiasco: freon and it’s widely used variants were off patent and the market was about to be flooded by cheap developing world sources. By phasing out freon and replacing it with newer, freshly patented chemicals, refrigeration companies were given the right to insist on replacement of all refrigeration equipment in the world (vastly profitable for them) and they were protected from all cheap competition in servicing that equipment. (also vastly profitable)
    More than enough money to kick back a chunk of it to the politicians and groups demanding that “something must be done!!!!”

  14. These are the same people who define 1900, when plants grew 40% slower as the climate optimum.
    And further claim – when Ag studies show a progressive increase in drought tolerance and heat tolerance of crops – with highest yield increases at the equator – that a 0.5°C increase or 1.0°C is a hard limit at which harm will occur. Even though the last 1°C and 100 PPM got us 60% more growth.
    1900 was too cold and had too little CO2 for plants to grow properly. It shouldn’t be used as the basis for anything. Further, we should demand that the IPCC limits be indexed to an index of crop heat tolerance. If this was done we would never hit the IPCC limit.
    The IPCC concept that warming is harmful or CO2 is bad, is made up out of the whole cloth.
    As far as our hole… We didn’t observe a lot of things until the satellite era. So we don’t really have any comparison for modern observations. The solution is simple, ban global warming/CFC/whatever claims as fraud for any property that has been observed closely for at least 100 years.

  15. The CRU debacle was not the first application of “lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia” to advance a false narrative for a political agenda.

    Someone who knows the Bible better than I can probably cite examples from the Old Testament.
    Here’s a story about ironmaking in the Weald district of southern England. Ironmaking required charcoal, which was made from trees. Trees were also required for almost everything else. They were the major industrial material. We thus have a dispute which led to a royal commission. The evidence tended to be alarmist.

    “all the inhabitants of the towns and villages… shall be driven to seek their living in other places and there utterly to forsake their dwelling, whose number we shall not be able to express, if the mills and furnces be suffered to remain.”
    “many a thousand not yet born feel with their parents the great hurt and incommodity engendered by their continuance.”
    “lack necessary wood for fuel for the relieving of poor fishers after their arrival from their daily fishing to dry their clothes and warm their bodies, by whose trade chiefly the said towns stand, the same will shortly decay.”
    “utterly wasted and destroyed, to the utter undoing of a great number of the inhabitants and tenants in that part.”
    “hereafter may ensue much trouble and business in that part and great hurt and charges to the inhabitants there.”

    The thing the alarmists didn’t mention was that large trees, suitable for building warships and buildings, were not being felled to make charcoal. The small branches necessary for charcoal making were provided by the highly renewable, environment friendly, process of coppicing wherein small trees were encouraged to branch rather than growing straight and tall. The process could be repeated many many times on the same tree.
    The alarmists ignored the truth and resorted to the same lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia that they employ to this very day.

    • Yep, I’ve read the evidencce in English County records that woodland expanded greatly with the Iromasters’ economic influence. Similar is happenning nowadays……

    • CommieBob: Good point, and really apposite to our present circumstances. One of the consequences of the 16th century wood crisis, manufactured or not, was the beginning of the large scale use of coal for heating and cooking. Coal was gathered on the northeast coast of England where coal seams were were exposed in cliffs that were being actively eroded by wave action – hence the term “sea coal”. Under Queen Elizabeth I’s rule, the coastal trade in sea coal, delivered to southern England, grew dramatically.
      There is serious irony here. In the 16th century, the fossil fuel industry really got started because of a fabricated shortage of wood. In the 21st century, English coal burning power stations are starting to burn wood because of a fabricated climate crisis supposedly caused by coal et al. You don’t know whether to laugh or cry. What have we really learned in 500 years?
      BTW, gathering sea coal still goes on. You can see photos of it here:
      http://robbirrell.com/category/projects/sea-coal/
      Also BTW, another consequence of the wood crisis was the development of improved forestry management. Those Elizabethan half-timbered houses needed a lot of 8″×8″ oak timbers, and that was a bigger drain on a limited resource than naval construction. England under Henry VIII was a mess. Under his daughter, England enjoyed a level of prosperity that it did not see again until after the industrial revolution got started. She was called “Good Queen Bess” for a reason – she actually cared about the material well-being of her people. Not a prominent characteristic of recent governments in the “western world”. You can see I’m a fan of QE1.
      Also BTW, under the semi-managed Elizabethan economy, metal mining was promoted by encouraging “German” miners from the Joachimsthal (now Jachymov) area to work in England by granting them licences to prospect and mine. What could be the first recorded use of iron-wheeled cars on rails to move heavy stuff easily, was noted in a lead mine dated at 1535 (ref: Shaw, WT Mining in the Lake Counties, (Dalesman, 1970).
      Metal mining, and then coal mining have been major contributers to technology development because of the physical problems of getting stuff out of holes in the ground, and the secondary problems of getting and keeping water out of those same holes. Mining matters, although greenies don’t seem to like it very much
      .
      Also BTW, the mint at Joachimsthal produced silver coins that were widely used in international trade. They were colloquially called “Joachimsthalers” and that got shortened to “thalers” which in turn got corrupted to “dollars”.

      • You can see I’m a fan of QE1.

        Elizabethan England was like Athens in terms of its influence on civilization. It was rife with challenges and opportunities. If Elizabeth had played her cards wrong (as did the Duke of Somerset) it could have ended with you and I speaking Spanish.
        History, like the climate, is chaotic. You have the Great Man theory (chaos). On the other hand, you have the theory that leaders will arise as required (determinism). I would argue that Elizabeth is prime evidence for the Great Man theory. I can’t imagine anyone else doing the job that she did. It was her great luck, and ours, that she came along at exactly the right time.

      • Ohhhhh! Queen Elizabeth the first.
        …and here I thought you were making some obscure case for Quantitative Easing… 🙂
        rip

    • Thanks. You fail to mention that that paper is relating ozone to the product of solar rays and chlorine concentration. ie CFCs. Interesting none the less.

      • Greg – you assert the OPPOSITE of what QB Lu documents. He reviews and rebuts the solar-chlorine model. See: 3.3.4 Heterogenous chemical reactions in the polar stratosphere.

        The unexpected discovered ozone hole . . was neither predicted nor explainable by the photochemical model . . . – The Ozone hole must be explained by another mechanism rather than the direct photolysis of CFCs.
        Fig. 5.6 The summer total ozone over Halley has exhibited no 11-year cyclic variations but a clear and steady increase since 1995-1996.

  16. “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”
    And Dr. Ball is a true revolutionary by that definition.

  17. With all due respect to Dr Ball, his underlying assumption is incorrect.
    The story of CFCs and their potential impact on ozone in the atmosphere was based fundamentally on science. The first paper was written by chemists in 1973, identified that CFCs had a particularly long life in the atmosphere, and that these gases would eventually reach the middle stratosphere, where UV radiation was likely to result in the release of chlorine atoms. This paper postulated that the chlorine would then react with ozone, resulting in its depletion.
    CFCs were commonly used in industry at the time, and the conclusions of this first and only paper were very publicly critisized. However, the fundamental science was proved correct by the US National Academy of Science in 1976, and the US banned the use of CFC based aerosols in 1978. For the years after this paper was published, increased funding was given to research this issue, and various countries were able to confirm both the presence of CFCs at high altitude in the atmosphere, and the depletion of ozone levels over time.
    The development of the Montreal Protocol came much later, but it also differs from the AGW’s Kyoto Protocol in that it banned the use of CFCs, ie the identified primary cause of the problem. By the time the Montreal Protocol came into effect, industry had worked out alternative chemicals that adequately replaced CFCs. Subsequently, the models of the projected long term impact of CFCs on ozone levels have proved accurate. And unlike the recent article that Dr Ball refers to, atmospheric ozone levels have been recovering since 1996.
    So, science postulated a cause and effect, science confirmed that theory with observations and evidence, science found a solution, and observations now confirm that the solution is working. As another point of difference with the history of AGW, the scientists who first brought this issue to public attention won the Nobel Peace prize in 1995.
    I would agree with Dr Ball’s suggestion that in the late 1980’s,certain environmentalists attempted to build their global warming campaign around the success of the Montreal Protocol. However, the differences are stark and telling:
    – 50,000 research papers later, and still no conclusive proof of the underlying theory of AGW
    – Lots of political support, except that the agreed to Kyoto Protocol fails to address the primary cause, so there has been no significant change to world wide emissions.
    – The projections made by the many climate models fail to align with observations.
    – None of the proposed alternatives are proving very effective.

    • And the whole cartload gets blown out of the water if the hole increases in size again from other causes, possibly solar minimums and maximums.To say they have a solution is taking a lot for granted. With all due respect

    • No, Pauly. We now know the energy is not present to allow the necesaary reactions. Not realised until people actually did the required experiments and study more recently. The usual postmodern rubbish, so dig deeper please.

    • Sea-to-air emissions of bromocarbon gases are known to play an important role in atmospheric ozone depletion. In this study, seawater concentrations of bromoform (CHBr3) and dibromomethane (CH2Br2) were measured regularly between February 2005 and March 2007 at the Rothera Oceanographic and Biological Time Series (RaTS) site located in Marguerite Bay on the Antarctic Peninsula. Strong seasonality in CHBr3 and CH2Br2 concentrations was observed. ‘
      ‘If these flux rates are representative of the seasonal ice edge zone bloom which occurs each year over large areas of the Southern Ocean during the austral summer, sea-to-air bromocarbon emissions could have an important impact on the chemistry of the Antarctic atmosphere.’
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GB003268/full

      • I didn’t know that the sea emitted bromocarbons, but I do know that the air surface above seawater is replete with aerosols, mostly spray droplets. (A very nemesis for laser beam propagation.) These droplets are small, of course. They can migrate and evaporate, leaving infinitesimal particles of salt (sodium chloride). If the salt migrates to the upper atmosphere (maybe into the stratosphere is sufficient), the UV energy is sufficient to split the chlorine from the sodium,
        A nutty theory? But there is a layer of sodium ions in the high atmosphere, heavy enough and reliable enough that the new astronomical observation technique of adaptive optics employs a “guide-star” laser that is co-aligned with the telescope, and projects a beam into the sodium layer to activate it and provide a local reference optical signal that can be used to adjust the telescope for transient atmospheric refractive changes.
        So, if there is no salt => upper atmosphere => ionic splitting => free chlorine mechanism, how did that sodium get there? (“Oh, the meteors brought it.” Yeah, right.)

    • Check out “Another Day, Another Dollar – CFC’s and the UN”, written in 2010.
      http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/science-papers/originals/another-day-another-dollar
      “In a paper titled “Forty Years’ Research on Atmospheric Ozone at Oxford: A History” (Applied Optics, March 1968), Dobson described an ozone monitoring program that began at Halley Bay in 1956. “When the data began to arrive, “the values in September and October 1956 were about 150 [Dobson] units lower than expected. … In November the ozone values suddenly jumped up to those expected. … It was not until a year later, when the same type of annual variation was repeated, that we realized that the early results were indeed correct and that Halley Bay showed a most interesting difference from other parts of the world.
      The BAS web site has data for 2009-10 and reports that: “Ozone values dropped, to reach a minimum of around 125 DU (60% depletion) in late September, (Antarctic spring). The lowest daily value measured was 107 DU on October 1. This minimum value is similar to those recorded each October since the early 1990s.” It is also similar to those in the spring of 1958 at the French Antarctic Observatory at Dumont d’Urville [opposite side of the South Pole from Halley Bay], when Rigaud and Leroy [quoted in Annales Geophysicae (November, 1990)] reported atmospheric ozone levels as low as 110 DU.
      It isn’t the first time that it has been claimed the Ozone Hole is “recovering”.
      “It seems, however, that reports of ozone’s “recovery” are greatly exaggerated. In August 2006, the WMO issued this statement: “Antarctic ozone forecasted to recover in 2065.”
      “A new scientific assessment, released Friday by the World Meteorological Organization, WMO and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) says that the stratospheric ozone layer that protects life on Earth from excessive solar radiation will recover five to 15 years later than previously expected.
      Because of special conditions within the Antarctic vortex (a natural cyclone of super-cold, super-fast winds), the Antarctic ozone hole is expected to recur regularly for another two decades.”
      UNEP and WMO are both subsidiaries of the UN and also joint promoters of the IPCC. Their assessment suggests that this is more of a natural phenomenon than is admitted. They explain why there is no Arctic ozone hole in the Northern hemisphere, where most of the anthropogenic CFC’s have been released, by the fact that the Arctic is not as cold as the Antarctic. However, there are those who predict an Arctic Ozone Hole to come.” http://www.theozonehole.com/arcticozone.htm
      It is emphatically claimed by the EPA and repeated in all discourse on the issue, that there are no natural sources of CFC’s. There is considerable evidence to show that their stance is wrong, as shown on the website of an Australian geologist: “CFCs are not Volcanic” – Oh Really? http://cfc.geologist-1011.net
      Volcanoes are not the only source of natural emissions, as shown by the British Antarctic Survey, who in July 2007, issued this press release: “LARGE quantities of ozone-depleting chemicals have been discovered in the Antarctic atmosphere by researchers from the University of Leeds, the University of East Anglia, and the British Antarctic Survey.
      https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070726104756.htm
      “The source of the halogens is natural – sea-salt in the case of bromine, and in the case of iodine, almost certainly bright orange algae that coat the underside of the sea ice around the continent. These halogens cause a substantial depletion in ozone above the ice surface. This affects the so-called oxidising capacity of the atmosphere – its ability to “clean itself” by removing certain – often man-made – chemical compounds. The iodine oxides also form tiny particles (a few nanometres in size), which can grow to form ice clouds, with a consequent impact on the local climate.”
      Ozone is Global Warming’s Little Brother, just like Ocean “Acidification” is Global Warming’s “Evil Twin”.
      It’s a (UN) Family Affair.

    • “The development of the Montreal Protocol came much later, but it also differs from the AGW’s Kyoto Protocol in that it banned the use of CFCs, ie the identified primary cause of the problem.”
      No they did not identify it as a cause of a problem. First the problem is not there. There is no proof there is any problem, speculative claims about the ozone hole in the 50’s notwithstanding.
      The thing they rely on still is that alternative and far more viable explanations have not yet been proven either, only demonstrated. The CFC ‘problem’ relies on speculation and some physical facts. Like CO2 the ‘basic physics’ may by true but confounding factors render them almost irrelevant as the initial explanation turns out to be partial.
      Prof Lu’s work is seminal in this regard. He correctly and appropriately tested his theories and predictions, not just mouthed off about them demanding trillion$ in subsidies for remedial technologies. At least he has working examples of the ozone damage and the oceans are once again far more important that people-sourced CFC’s (which are included in his works).
      Most relevant is the importance of cosmic rays which have already been proven at CERN to be very important to cloud formation and coverage. Montreal is more properly known for its comedy clubs than its laughable protocols and declarations.

  18. Dr. Ball wrote: “Lying is a constant of politics, but it is now legally endorsed by the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ), more appropriately the Department of Injustice.”
    FWIW, the Director of the FBI (a Republican and former member of the Bush Administration and former prosecutor) said that Ms Clinton did not lie to the FBI about her email. He did say what she said to the FBI conflicted with short quotes from her testimony in front Congress, but that the FBI doesn’t investigate such allegations of perjury until Congress requests that they do so. Nor has anyone complained to the FBI that her personal email server prevented the State Department from properly responding to Congressional subpoenas or FOIA requests. So she hasn’t been cleared of problems in these areas.
    FWIW, the FBI found no intent to disclose secret information (unlike with David Petraus) and but extreme negligence in handling top secret information. The statute permitting prosecution for extreme negligence (which arguably occurred) had only been used in one trial in nearly a century. They recommend not proceeding this that as the sole charge.

      • Clipe: Why would you link articles on this legal topic that were written by partisan columnists without a law degree – and written before Director Comey testified in front of Congress? How about an article by someone qualified to comment – say a professor of law or the Federalist Society?
        Or better still, listen to or read Director Comey’s testimony in front of Congress at c-span
        http://www.c-span.org/video/?411866-101/washington-journal-julian-hattem-fbi-director-james-comeys-capitol-hill-testimony
        There is little point in listening to the comments and question from the Democrats, since they are thrilled with this decision. Listen to the dialog with Republicans, particularly Trey Goudy, a former prosecutor. Goudy obviously would be thrilled bring the charges the FBI declined to recommend, but it isn’t obvious he would prevail at proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on a single charge of gross negligence.
        The rest of the testimony shows that Ms. Clinton is in danger of being charged with perjury – once Congress requests that an investigation be performed. It also show the possibility of obstruction of justice by withholding information subpoenaed by Congress and requested under FOI – again once a complaint is received. IMO, the personal server and the actions taken show clear intent by Clinton to keep information out of the hands of State Department lawyers responding to subpoenas. I don’t think she clearly understood how this would put secret information at risk. Yes, she was grossly negligent in that regard, but proving it beyond a reasonable doubt would be extremely challenging.
        I suspect the DoJ restricted the scope of the FBI’s investigation to the only official complaint they received – from the Inspector General of the Department of State.

    • Correct. Comey is upstanding. The ‘gross negligence’ statute is in the Espionage Act, now over 100 years old. All other criminal ‘secrets’ acts require scienter (knowing intent to violate). Petreaus clearly met the ‘scienter’ criminal knowing intent standard. HC did not. The only prosecution under the Espionage Act ‘gross negligence standard was in 2003. An FBI agent had an affair with a Chinese spy, and in that process she got access to confidential spy stuff. He was convicted (by plea bargain), but not on this Statute. No one ever has been in 100 years. Comey made IMO a correct judgement call here, as much as I dislike the outcome.
      Note Comey hedged on the Clinton Foundation political corruption angle. Elsewhere, reported FBI had accessed additional server non-wiped private emails. Elsewhere, said the FBI had expanded its investigations based on that access. Plenty of political corruption smoke. Can the FBI find fire?

      • “The ‘gross negligence’ statute is in the Espionage Act, now over 100 years old.”
        And if you don’t consider that law justification for prosecution, in this case, I don’t consider you worthy of a second glance in terms of anyone being upstanding or not, ristvan.

      • “Can the FBI find fire?”
        Can you?
        ‘The Espionage Act of 1917’

        (e) whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, or information, relating to the national defence, through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be list, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.

      • ristvan wrote: “Correct. Comey is upstanding. The ‘gross negligence’ statute is in the Espionage Act, now over 100 years old. All other criminal ‘secrets’ acts require scienter (knowing intent to violate). Petreaus clearly met the ‘scienter’ criminal knowing intent standard. HC did not.”
        Do you really think Hillary didn’t know what she was doing? Do you really think Hillary was not conspiring to deceive?
        Trey Gowdy thinks Hillary *did* have knowing intent. I’ll go with Gowdy’s interpretation. And Juliani’s. And a lot of others, too.

      • Had you every filled out the paperwork required for a TS/SCI with SAP privileges, your opinion of her intent would differ. Not only that, but her position as Secretary of State made her an original classification authority, i.e., someone that actually classifies material in the first place.

      • ristvan,
        Can you find the fire here?;
        ‘Records Management by Federal Agencies’
        (44 U.S.C. Chapter 31) …
        § 3106. Unlawful removal, destruction of records
        (a) FEDERAL AGENCY NOTIFICATION.—The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, corruption, deletion, erasure, or other destruction of records in the custody of the agency, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records the head of the Federal agency knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from that agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to the legal custody of that Federal agency.
        (b) ARCHIVIST NOTIFICATION.—In any case in which the head of the Federal agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action described in subsection (a), or is participating in, or believed to be participating in any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made.
        ~
        ’18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally’
        (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
        (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 795; Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title V, § 552(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1566; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
        . . It appears to me Mr. Ball was correct in his assertion . .

      • Perhaps more importantly, the wife of an ex-president, a former secretary of state who is running to be president, cannot be trusted with confidential material. Yet there she is, still running for president!

      • Intent? By God man, she intended to violate security agreements she knew existed. She clearly obstructed justice on several occasions. She was told early in her SOS tenure to stop doing what she was doing. She wiped the server.
        Did she lie to the FBI. How the hell does the FBI or anyone know? There is no transcript of the meeting. She lied to the public repeatedly.

    • Defn of LIE includes “something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture”
      When asked if Clinton lied to the public Comey said “That’s a question I’m not qualified to answer”. That response was a lie, one that everyone let slide. An honest answer would have been, “I won’t answer that because it is outside my job requirements and the answer would, I believe, cause more overall harm than good.”
      When asked if Clinton would get an FBI security clearance Comey responded “I don’t want to answer a hypothetical. The FBI has a robust process … blah blah blah”. An honest answer would have been “I won’t answer that hypothetical.” (note that he had no problem dealing in the hypothetical when he said that NO reasonable prosecutor would want to file charges). The blah blah blah that was included in his answer was intended to change the direction and deflect away from his true response … an evasion/detraction..
      Lying is a indeed a constant of politics, Just because Comey was appointed.rather than elected he is no less a politician than those that had to run for office.

      • I liked the part where Trey Gowdy asked FBI Director Comey if Hillary lied when she said she only used one mobile device. Instead of Comey answering “yes” he said “she used multiple devices”. He avoided giving a “yes” soundbite every time, by saying something other than a simple yes, to the question.
        I don’t know Comey’s motivations, but IMO, he is not playing it straight with the American people. If he is sincere in his take on the subject, then I question his grasp of the law.

    • Based on bow cam pictures from MS Bremmen passing through Beliot Straight in 2013, 30% or less.

  19. Any reexamination on the dangers of using DDT? I thought it has been discredited. Maybe they should use DDT in Brazil to help eradicate mosquitoes prior to the Olympics, etc.

  20. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    “It is another example of alarmists and uninformed media reporting a natural situation as unnatural. It is a lie of omission because they only presented facts that suited their story, but lying and deception are now standard and condoned practice for some people. Apparently for them the end justifies the means.”
    Another Dr. Tim Ball must read…

  21. Meanwhile I sit here desperately trying to get my house in S.W. Florida cooler than 80℉. What should have been a fairly easy and cheap AC repair has become a living nightmare because of the forced change in coolants and the acceptance of lying that Dr Ball talks about. I know a bit of meteorology so I am not easily fooled by A.C. repairmen who try to trick me about R.H. temperature and dew point, but I really have very little idea about how central A.C. really works, so I am vulnerable to be taken advantage of in this area. I do know that the coolant has been forced to be changed yet again, to the benefit of the government and Dupont, this required that my whole system be replaced and not just the condenser, but lies upon lies have left me very hot under the collar and without truly working AC.

    • Yet again? That doesn’t sound right. Get more than one opinion and ask someone you know to recommend someone honest and knowledgeable.

  22. Go to reality348.wordpress.com and there is a heap of observations collated by erl happ using nullschoolearth and more…

  23. Someone should develop an update to Orwell’s Animal Farm by changing its plot to show the folly of CAGW. It could easily start out with Chicken Little running around instilling fear among the animals, etc. etc.

    • Maybe. in the spirit of learning from mistakes, you could compose your lengthy responses in a simple text editor, then copy and paste.
      Perhaps WP hasn’t eaten it, perhaps it’s just in moderation. I usually get no notification that a comment went to moderation, it just doesn’t appear right away.

  24. “With the introduction of the new paradigm of environmentalism and the subset global warming, natural events were presented as unnatural. The strategy provided a ‘no lose’ situation. People were easily misled because they don’t know what is normal.” Tim Ball
    The interest for environmentalists in the ozone hole this time around appears to be to regulate/phase out the use of bromine. Bromine is used in agriculture to control many pests and pathogens and thus to dramatically increase yields for orchards, strawberries, and other crops.
    This element appears to have a natural cycle in the oceans. The man made chemicals are only a fraction of the naturally occurring bromines. It is just as Tim Ball has pointed out: because we are ignorant of natural cycles for the elements and compounds, we are easily panicked by unscrupulous scientists. These practitioners are pursuing their usual Anthropocene Age scientific paradigm, in which all human activity upsets “tipping points” in nature, resulting in catastrophes.
    I am very distressed when I think of the losses to growers–and therefore to all of us in this country– that will come about if these environmentalists get their way and actually ban methyl bromide.
    I will just copy and paste some bromine research I have posted on WUWT before.
    cont’d…

    • “Of the nearly 3200 known naturally occurring organohalogen compounds, more than 1600 contain bromine. These organobromines, which range in structural intricacy from the simple but enormously abundant bromoform (CHBr3) and bromomethane to the highly complex bryozoan bromine-containing indole alkaloids, are produced by marine and terrestrial plants, marine animals (sponges, tunicates, bryozoans, gorgonians, sea hares, nudibranchs), bacteria, fungi, some higher animals, and a few mammals including humans.”

    • Methyl bromides occur in nature:
      “Bromomethane originates from both natural and human sources. In the ocean, marine organisms are estimated to produce 1-2 billion kilograms annually.[2] It is also produced in small quantities by certain terrestrial plants, such as members of the Brassicaceae family. It is manufactured for agricultural and industrial use by reacting methanol with hydrogen bromide:
      CH3OH + HBr → CH3Br + H2O”
      Broccoli I think.

    • Methyl Bromine protects peach orchards:
      RUSTON, La. — Peach orchards at Mitcham Farms, near the north Louisiana city of Ruston, have survived winter freezes, droughts and dangerous hail storms. But they evidently will not survive the Environmental Protection Agency and its regulations.
      The family-owned business, established in 1946 and featured in tourism magazines, is Louisiana’s largest peach orchard,according to its website, but owner Joe Mitcham expects he’ll close up shop in only a few years.
      In 2005, the federal government completed its phase out of a chemical known as methyl bromide, used to control pests in peach trees and other plants. This has given Mitcham no choice but to close, as most of his trees won’t survive without it. In fact, many already have.
      The EPA claims using this chemical threatens the earth’s ozone layer and that the U.S. had to discontinue its use because of the Montreal Protocol On Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer and because of the Clean Air Act.
      http://dailysignal.com/2014/07/12/epa-regs-likely-kill-68-year-old-louisiana-peach-orchard/

      • Methyl bromide does indeed threaten the ozone layer, just nor very much. Like CO2 and warming, it is true, just not very effective as a warming agent.
        Bromine reacts with cosmic rays to break up ozone. See Prof Lu from Waterloo, and his new book. Most bromine comes from the ocean. Mostly ozone impact happens over the south pole continent. We can make a difference, just not a big one.

    • Strawberry growers and the recently EPA-outlawed methyl bromide:
      “California is the top strawberry growing state producing 2-3 billion pounds per year. California accounts for 20% of the world’s production of strawberries. Since about 1965, approximately 90% of strawberry land in California has been fumigated before each crop is planted. Statewide average strawberry yields tripled following the adoption of fumigation. Generally, the increase in strawberry yield is credited to effective control of the soilborne fungal disease, verticillium wilt, which attacks the water-conducting tissue of the plant. In recent years, the use of fumigants in California has been under intense regulatory review with a phaseout of methyl bromide and use restrictions which could include expanded buffer zones in strawberry fields where fumigation will not be permitted. A recent working group in California assessed the status of nonfumigant alternatives……”
      http://pesticideguy.org/2013/07/09/to-remain-viable-california-strawberry-growers-will-need-to-use-fumigants-for-years-to-come/

    • And it is useful to the human body:
      The Latest Essential Element Found – Bromine – Now There are 28
      Posted on July 3, 2014 by The Alternative Daily
      “There were 27 chemical elements considered essential for human life, but in a new paper published by the journal Cell, researchers from Vanderbilt University say there are now 28, and the latest addition is bromine.
      Among the 92 naturally-occurring chemical elements in the universe, bromine has become the 28th element that’s considered essential for tissue development in all animals, including everything from primitive sea creature to human beings.
      Vanderbilt Professor of Medicine Billy Hudson, the paper’s senior author, remarked, “without bromine, there are no animals.” The research team showed that fruit flies died when bromine was removed from their diet, but were able to survive when it was restored. Bromine is commonly found in seawater and thought to have the potential to improve the health of patients on dialysis or feeding tubes, according to the researchers.
      Prior to this discovery, the element had not been officially designated as essential for humans, but there had been reports of reduced growth, fertility and life expectancy in some animals as a result of hyperthyroidism that was secondary to a diet deficient in bromine.
      In humans and animals, bromine has anti-seizure properties and is well-known to be effective in treating hyperthyroid conditions. Many marine plants, kelp in particular, are rich sources of the newly designated essential element. For people with hypothyroidism, the opposite is true, in that foods high in bromine may interfere with thyroid functioning.
      While these foods are healthy and nutritious for most people, those with hypothyroidism may want to avoid or consume them in moderation. Foods that contain a significant amount of bromine include:
      Cruciferous vegetables like broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts and turnips
      Fermented soybean foods including miso, tempeh and yellow soybean paste
      Other foods, including peaches, strawberries, pears, peanuts, radishes, spinach, pine nuts, sweet potatoes, bamboo shoots and millet”

  25. The Oscar for claiming the normal as abnormal must go to the producers of the “Making of the Revenant”.
    Watched this documentary recently on a long haul flight on one of the world’s leading airlines.
    I am aware that the star of the movie – climate hypocrite Leonardo DiCaprio is renowned for scooting around the world in gasoline guzzling private jets, hob nobbing on large diesel powered luxury yachts and collecting big opulent mansions – and then preaching to us all to reduce our carbon footprint. So I guess he might have a hand in the postscript of the doco:
    “To-day corporate greed is pushing energy companies further into Canada’s Boreal forest exploiting the wilderness for tar sands displacing the indigenous communities and causing ever worsening heat waves.
    Rapid temperature change there forced the film crew to travel to Argentina for find snow. Everywhere people are worried about the future – climate action is the greatest moral imperative of our generation.”

    Couldn’t find snow in Canada! My God any-one that can’t find snow in Canada would have trouble finding their pants to get dressed in the morning. The “ever worsening heat waves” wouldn’t have anything to do with the ice eating Chinook wind would it? – most prevalent over Alberta Canada where the film was made.
    And I wonder if Leo ever contemplated that it is “corporate greed’ that keeps the fuel flowing for his private jet setting and the powerful engines on the luxury yachts he lolls about on and the heating systems in his opulent mansions?
    And I would be amazed if the “displaced” indigenous communities do not benefit in many ways from grants and employment from the “greedy corporations” that are producing oil from the Alberta bitumen deposits.
    I am sure that no-one, least of all Justin Trudeau, Canada’s new Prime Minister or any reader of WUWT or any tar oil company wants to see the indiscriminate destruction of the Boreal forest or the rampant exploitation of indigenous communities but like all things in this modern word Leo, there can be balance between nature and human need.

    • I went to California last year and it was cool, foggy and rained, so I guess me and Leo are even?

  26. Everything global warmers do seems designed to rob us of energy or food, to starve the population of both to limit population growth.
    .This the reason for the constant irrational ratcheting of environmental regulation, the “renewable” push, the biofuels push, etc.
    The solution is to have a “Its good enough” environmental law. Any new regulations must be cost/benefit positive, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond the margin of error, and must not impair personal freedom. Under this guideline would bromine be regulated?

    • Misanthropes have found a home in NGOs like Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, Friends of The Earth etc. These people despise Humanity and our prosperity. (Theirs too?)

      • The FOTE/EOH (Friends of the Earth/Enemies of Humanity) are pretty blunt about their view that there can be wilderness or people but not both, and they prefer wilderness.
        Or to paraphrase a Linusism: “They love mankind, its just the people that they can’t stand.”

  27. I was a teenager when the ozone hole scare was broken by the media. Without having any political axe to grind one way or the other, I remember being astonished that there was apparently no interest in the question of whether this hole was new, or had always been there. Or if it was a feature subject to natural variation. “We’ve found it and it must be new and it must be bad.”

    • In about 30 years they not only developed a measurement method, its natural variability, and the cause of the decline. About one climate cycle. Really well done. /sarc

  28. In Salt Lake City, Utah health officials have reported one person infected with the Zika virus has died. Health officials from Salt Lake County say earlier this year the person had traveled to another country where the virus continues to spread.The patient tested positive for Zika and died in late June. Doctors do not know if the virus contributed to the person’s death. They reported that the person had an underlying medical condition. Add this to the list of Scare.

  29. Anything with Tim Ball as a by line should be summarily dismissed as oil company funded propaganda.

  30. @Greg and others.
    Your comments are as always interesting.
    My investigations show that ozone is not only increasing SH but also NH.
    the increase/decrease in ozone always looks chaotic, year to year, like the 2003 result that you mention, but over a longer time period, you can always recognize some form of quadratic function or sine wave, like here
    https://i2.wp.com/oi61.tinypic.com/ju7fw9.jpg
    If you look carefully, like I did, you will eventually realize that our atmosphere is all the time busy protecting us against the most harmful rays coming from the sun.
    There never was a man made ozone hole, just as there is no man made global warming:
    https://i0.wp.com/oi62.tinypic.com/33kd6k2.jpg
    Namely, if AGW did exist, there should be some chaos in my graph. There is none. Both maxima and minima are going down, the latter trend being exactly opposite AGW theory.
    After some period of investigations I concluded that the drop in global maxima and minima is following the natural curve for the drop in the solar polar magnetic field strengths. It makes sense to think that as those strengths are falling more of the most energetic particles can escape. The atmosphere protects us against those particles by forming more ozone, peroxides and N-oxides. Important for you to remember here is that ozone is not the only component formed TOA. I strongly suspect that peroxides are formed preferentially to ozone if more OH radicals are present. Did anyone ever check the peroxide inside “the hole”?
    The time scale for the last half of the current Gleissberg clearly is 1971 – 2014, with global cooling starting exactly in the middle, ca. 1995. (looks like 2014 is when the last double solar pole switch occurred)

  31. We are now going to have a “natural 10 year test” of the Ozone over Antarctica and the Arctic. Since the Sun produces the UV that creates Ozone in the Earth’s upper atmosphere, Solar output of UV will be reduced due the the Solar Minimum now taking place. The 10.7 cm Flux is an easy way to measure the Solar UV output. As long as the Flux is less than 80sfu, little Ozone will be produced. Now, it takes about one year for the Ozone layer to stabilize to its new “thickness”. Next year will be the first results of the “test”.
    Contrary to published “false predictions”, we will see an enormous expansion of the Ozone hole.

    • jlurtz says
      Solar output of UV will be reduced due the the Solar Minimum now taking place. The 10.7 cm Flux is an easy way to measure the Solar UV output. As long as the Flux is less than 80sfu, little Ozone will be produced
      henry says
      indeed, as more ozone, peroxides and N-oxides are formed TOA, more UV is deflected off from earth, so less will hit and heat the oceans. If you don’t get this [chemistry] you will never understand the coming global cooling.
      I refer to my previous posts to explain.

  32. The warming of the AMO and Arctic region driven by the increase in negative North Atlantic Oscillation conditions since 1995, is a negative feedback to reduced forcing of the climate, and the reverse of what the IPCC models correctly predict, that rising GHG’s will increase positive NAO. That gives a direct measure of how little the increase in CO2 forcing has done to attenuate the effects of declining indirect solar forcings since the mid 1990’s.

  33. Give me a break. The only refuge of the “deniers” is that there is a global conspiracy among scientists. I suggest that all of you spend some time volunteering on an environmental study and get a first hand view. The vast majority of these scientists have extremely high integrity and are reporting their data honestly.
    [and you know this firsthand how? You have several screen names here. Luke, CamCam CamCam^2 and now Arctic Observer. this is a violation of site policy (sockpuppeting). You are now on permanent moderation. One doubts your words when you don’t display any integrity yourself. -mod]

  34. Thanks Dr. Ball for shining a light on this tactic of creating alarm about normal natural processes and patterns. Also your use of the Arctic annual melting is a good example how ordinary events are hyped. It is also widely unappreciated that the Arctic sea ice, lacking a land anchor like Antarctica, should now be imagined as an ice, but rather a swirling kaleidoscope of ice pieces. Of course, each year the vagaries of weather greatly affect the measured ice extents, without any implication from CO2.
    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/the-great-arctic-ice-exchange/

  35. This article is absolute nonsense. The mechanisms for depletion of the ozone catalyzed by CFCs is well understood. The variations that we have seen in the ozone layer are not primarily natural. You seem more concerned with the imprecise terminology (“ozone hole”) than actual science. The models have been valid in that the prediction was that CFCs were predicted to peak in 2015 due to the Montreal Protocols. We should not have to wait for some determination of “normal” to take actions. That is a ridiculous standard. There are a few valid points in your argument, but you ignore them completely:
    1) The costs of elimination of CFCs may be higher than the benefit from changes to CFCs. For instance, the availability of refrigeration and air conditioning is a significant benefit to the world. These benefits may outweigh the costs (I don’t agree with this because of CFC alternates — but the argument is valid.)
    2) The harm of ozone depletion is exaggerated because the depletion is primarily over polar regions. We could have moved slower to find more cost effective alternates.
    3) The political case was made on exaggerated evidence.
    If you’re going to write an article like this, you need to cite sources. Without that effort, this sort of rant costs credibility.

    • @lorcanbonda
      I am interested to find out exactly how much peroxide you measured exactly inside the “the ozone hole”.
      Perhaps you should go through my previous comments.
      Indeed, your comment makes no sense.

    • If you’re going to write a comment like this, you need to cite sources. Without that effort, this sort of rant costs credibility…..D’oh !

      • Is that a joke?
        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/assessment_for_decision-makers.pdf
        “Actions taken under the Montreal Protocol have led to decreases in the atmospheric abundance of controlled ozone-depleting substances (ODSs), and are enabling the return of the ozone layer toward 1980 levels.”
        and
        “The sum of the measured tropospheric abundances of substances controlled under the Montreal
        Protocol continues to decrease. Most of the major controlled ODSs are decreasing largely as projected, and
        hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and halon-1301 are still increasing. Unknown or unreported sources of carbon tetrachloride are needed to explain its abundance.”
        “Total column ozone declined over most of the globe during the 1980s and early 1990s (by about 2.5% averaged over 60°S to 60°N). It has remained relatively unchanged since 2000, with indications of a small increase in total column ozone in recent years, as expected. In the upper stratosphere there is a clear recent ozone increase, which climate models suggest can be explained by comparable contributions from declining ODS abundances and upper stratospheric cooling caused by carbon dioxide increases.”

      • Dear Lorcanbonda,
        Search for my comment above on the plausible existence of a natural convector of sea salt particles to the low stratosphere, where UV dissociates the salt into sodium and chlorine. Chlorine is the ozone-depletion actor, after all. We don’t need CFCs to play the villain exclusively. Who knows how much of the chlorine comes naturally from the ocean? (Note: There is a sodium layer in the atmosphere; must have come from somewhere.)
        There are also volcanic emissions of HF, HCl, and HBr. If hot, dry volcanic gas ascends to the stratosphere, there is little opportunity for atmospheric water to wash any of this away. It can also hitch a ride on ash particles, which can reach these altitudes.
        You seem to have the attitude that everything can be known a priori and laboratory work trumps natural observations. That would make you a poor astronomer or naturalist… Possibly even a poor archaeologist…

    • The rant is yours…..
      “The mechanisms for depletion of the ozone catalyzed by CFCs is well understood”…..in the laboratory.
      “The variations that we have seen in the ozone layer are not primarily natural.” How can that be proven? There is considerable evidence for naturally occurring CFC’s.
      “The models have been valid in that the prediction was that CFCs were predicted to peak in 2015 due to the Montreal Protocols.”
      So did CFC’s peak in 2015? How does anyone know? CFC reporting is as much subject to error as is CO2 emission reporting. It can be anything anyone wants it to be, like Chinese CO2.
      Because CFC’s are also classed as greenhouse gases, their destruction qualified under the UN Clean Development Mechanism, CDM. A report in 2010 pointed out that some plants produced CFC’s in order to then destroy them and claim Certificates of Emission Reduction, (CER) under the CDM. “CDM Watch, an NGO, showed the most lucrative projects in the CDM, chemical plants that destroyed HFC-23, may have inflated their emissions in order to destroy them and sell more offsets.”
      The UNFCCC CDM provided funding for the destruction of HFC-23 from HCFC-22 produced in developing countries from 2003 and such countries as China became the largest producers of HCFC-22 in the ensuing years. http://www.euractiv.com/section/climate-environment/news/un-halts-carbon-credits-to-chinese-hfc-plants/
      I doubt that was accounted for in the models, which you claim have been valid.
      HFC22 was scheduled in the 1987 Montreal Protocol for phasing out in industrialised countries by 2030, although developing countries were allowed to expand production until 2015 and only stop producing the gases in 2040. This is the “contract and converge mechanism” in action again, as with CO2 emissions. If these gases are so dangerous, why can they be produced for another 23 years?

      • ” “The mechanisms for depletion of the ozone catalyzed by CFCs is well understood”…..in the laboratory.”
        Yes, that is correct.
        ” “The variations that we have seen in the ozone layer are not primarily natural.” How can that be proven? There is considerable evidence for naturally occurring CFC’s.” — it doesn’t need to be “proven”. That is an unreasonable standard. Claiming that since we can’t ‘prove it’ means that we can never develop a reasonable estimate are not the same thing.
        “So did CFC’s peak in 2015? How does anyone know? CFC reporting is as much subject to error as is CO2 emission reporting. It can be anything anyone wants it to be, like Chinese CO2.” — it depends, but I would like to see some numbers for this. That being said — this article references a different article where we claim just that.
        “Because CFC’s are also classed as greenhouse gases, their destruction qualified under the UN Clean Development Mechanism, CDM. A report in 2010 pointed out that some plants produced CFC’s in order to then destroy them and claim Certificates of Emission Reduction, (CER) under the CDM. … .” –>This is a non-sequitor. Just because there are unscrupulous and unethical people does not mean that the science is wrong.
        “I doubt that was accounted for in the models, which you claim have been valid.” I didn’t actually claim the models were valid. I pointed out that their prediction was that they were supposed to peak in 2015 seems to be validated by the article that this one references. I agree with you that we should be seeing more scientific measurements that confirm the validity and changes to any predictions.
        That being said, the ‘model’ for CFCs is a much simpler model than that for the carbon dioxide and the climate. It is simply a comparison of buildup of CFCs in the stratosphere and consumption rates through reactions. We do this same modeling in every chemical reaction in chemical manufacturing plants in the nation. CO2 is a different story because the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere has multiple pathways.
        My point is that an article like this lack credibility. Without credibility, the author should consider everything they write as suspect.

  36. http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/full/news050228-12.html
    The biggest problem is not whether CFC’s play a role but the weighting given and presentation that magnifies the role of CFS’s much higher than what can be proven and ignores powerful natural causes/variability that clearly are there.
    Let’s be clear. Scientists are identifying natural causes as in those from the link above but when valuable studies/research comes forth, it never gets dialed into the mix for the public and others to discern, with the weighting it deserves scientifically because the gate keepers of information and propaganda, don’t want the political message to get distorted.
    Exactly the same with CO2.
    How much weighting does the planet greening up get?
    Record smashing crop yields/world food production?
    Massive benefits to most life on the planet?
    Decrease in violent tornadoes, tropical cyclone energy, global drought?
    Best weather/climate in 1,000 years, since the Medieval Warm Period?
    Instead, we only here about bad things, which are exaggerated because the gate keepers of the information, spin data/facts to support a political message not a scientific one.
    With climate science today, If you question those exaggerations and facts, even using authentic science/empirical data, you are labelled a “denier”. The scientific method always embraces skeptics. They provide opportunities to those with speculative theories to prove their theories.
    A scientist with an authentic theory that is questioned, does not just call others “deniers” who are skeptical…………and expect that to be the end of it(science is settled/debate is over).
    They MUST prove the theory beyond a reasonable doubt. The point of contention of course is, what qualifies as “reasonable doubt”.
    The lack of skill in global climate models and one sided framing of a beneficial gas, CO2(as pollution) clearly disqualifies the parties focusing on those elements as being objective enough to evaluate what “reasonable doubt” realities are.

  37. And as a GE refrigeration engineer (who was livid at GE management for agreeing to the scare) told me: the patent on freon was just about to run out when the Montreal Protocol went into effect. The patent was held by DuPont, the very folks with the patent on the “clean” (but inferior) replacement for freon!

    • Patents on CFCs and HCFCs were long since expired. Most came from the 1920s and 30s, with some azeotropes for low temps concocted in WW2 to replace ammonia (toxic and flammable) on ships.

  38. The ozone hole CFC conspiracy theory is all crap. First, there’s half the amount of ozone in the South Pole than global average because the thickness of the stratosphere at the poles is half the global average. Generally there’s half the number of gas molecules whether they are nitrogen, oxygen, argon, carbon dioxide or ozone. Now our hairsprays didn’t cause the thinner polar stratosphere, that would mean our hairsprays also deformed earth from being a perfect sphere.
    Second, why is CFC selectively destroying the ozone in the South Pole but not the North Pole? Because the stratospheric winds in the southern hemisphere are less effective in transporting ozone from the mid latitudes. Our hairsprays didn’t alter the southern hemisphere wind patterns.
    Third, South Pole has half the ozone but also gets less than half solar radiation than the equator. So you get more UV radiation at the equator than the South Pole. 250 million Indonesians don’t mind the UV but environmentalists are scared the ice sheet in Antarctica might get sunburn or skin cancer.

  39. The ozone hole CFC theory is all crap. First, there’s half the amount of ozone in the South Pole than global average because the thickness of the stratosphere at the poles is half the global average. Generally there’s half the number of gas molecules whether they are nitrogen, oxygen, argon, carbon dioxide or ozone. Now our hairsprays didn’t cause the thinner polar stratosphere, that would mean our hairsprays also deformed earth from being a perfect sphere.
    Second, why is CFC selectively destroying the ozone in the South Pole but not the North Pole? Because the stratospheric winds in the southern hemisphere are less effective in transporting ozone from the mid latitudes. Our hairsprays didn’t alter the southern hemisphere wind patterns.
    Third, South Pole has half the ozone but also gets less than half solar radiation than the equator. So you get more UV radiation at the equator than the South Pole. 250 million Indonesians don’t mind the UV but environmentalists are scared the ice sheet in Antarctica might get sunburn or skin cancer.

      • Dr. Strangelove July 10, 2016 at 8:10 pm
        The ozone hole CFC theory Your post is all crap.

        Fixed it for you.
        Sorry strike didn’t work first time.

  40. Isn’t ozone created in the stratosphere by the action of UV rays on O2? If so, it is a perfectly normal situation for the ozone level above the poles to drop each winter/spring, because we all know the sun does not shine there for almost six months at a time.

    • UV rays break the ozone into O2. Less ozone on summer. But ozone hole theory isn’t seasonal but geographic. They focus is on the imaginary ozone hole in Antarctica. There’s no hole, the ozone there is 1.5 mm thick

  41. The area where the ozone column drops below an arbitrary level (the hole) reminds me of the movie The Englishman Who Went up a Hill but Came down a Mountain
    The film is set in 1917 (with World War I in the background), and revolves around two English cartographers, the pompous Garrad and his junior, Anson. They arrive at the fictional Welsh village of Ffynnon Garw (“Rough Fountain” or “Rough Spring” in Welsh) to measure its “mountain” – only to cause outrage when they conclude that it is only a hill because it is slightly short of the required 1000 feet in height. The villagers, aided and abetted by the wily Morgan the Goat and the Reverend Mr Jones (who after initially opposing the scheme, grasps its symbolism in restoring the community’s war-damaged self-esteem), conspire with Morgan to delay the cartographers’ departure while they build an earth cairn on top of the hill to make it high enough to be considered a mountain.

  42. I remember in Chemistry class being taught that Ozone (O3) was formed in the upper atmosphere by Cosmic Rays1 or Alpha Particles from the Sun, bumping into Oxygen molecules (O2) according to the equation 3O2⇋ 2O3, a reversible reaction.
    Reactive and unstable, Ozone decays pretty soon, back into O2 or an oxide of Nitrogen (NOx), there being plenty of Nitrogen around up there.
    So imagine my surprise when I learned that in America Ozone is believed to come from automobile exhaust pipes in places like Los Angeles.
    When, in the ‘80s a sharp eyed New York Times reporter first spotted the ‘Ozone Hole’ lurking over Patagonia in late October, I was curious. When, every year thereafter, the ‘Ozone Hole’ re- appeared at the same time and place as reported in the NYT, I became suspicious.
    Now it was common knowledge among my classmates that our schoolmasters were Neanderthals, nevertheless to avoid being caned we paid attention, A.D.D. having not yet been invented.
    We also knew from paying attention that the Antarctic, being a continent was 30 degrees C or more colder than the Arctic which is an ocean.
    With no sunlight for six months there are no ‘Cosmic Rays’ to generate fresh ozone over Antarctica. In addition the cold dense polar air mass descends over the South Pole and heads North in every direction creating the hurricane force katabatic winds. The Earth’s rotation or Coriolis effect , take your pick, gives the Northbound wind an Easterly kick and voila! the South Polar vortex is born, giving rise to the roaring forties, or screaming fifties depending how far south you go. All of this sucks more of the remaining ozone out of the upper atmosphere.
    When, in September, spring in the antipodes, the Sun pops its smiling face over the horizon to warm things up again, relatively speaking, the polar vortex weakens and the ozone depleted winter air mass spirals Northward to show up in Patagonia on cue for the annual October/November Ozone hole spotting! Apparently they couldn’t find one in the Northern Hemisphere.
    To panic about the disappearing ozone, our shield against cancer causing UV radiation, seems strange given that UV radiation by creating the Ozone layer is absorbed in the process.
    Apparently the energy needed to create the highly reactive Ozone molecule from the standard O2 Oxygen molecule reduces the high energy UV to a lower energy state with a corresponding longer and less harmful wavelength according to the formula E= H/λ, where E is ‘Energy’, λ (lamda) is wavelength, and H is Plank’s constant. At least that’s what they told us!
    I was quite happy with this explanation for a quarter of a century until the folks in Montreal came out with their version, and being a bit of a skeptic myself, I couldn’t help but wonder if perhaps they were upset at not having a Northern Ozone hole of their own and didn’t want the Patagonians to have the only one!?
    What say ye?

    • Mike, you say
      I remember in Chemistry class being taught that Ozone (O3) was formed in the upper atmosphere by Cosmic Rays1 or Alpha Particles from the Sun, bumping into Oxygen molecules (O2) according to the equation 3O2⇋ 2O3, a reversible reaction.
      Henry says
      This is largely correct, but not reversible once formed in this way by the sun’s rays… and ozone is not the only chemical formed. This is the way our atmosphere is protecting us against the most energetic rays from the sun. During a time such as now, with very low solar activity, i.e. lower solar polar magnetic field strengths, more of the most energetic particles can escape from the sun and hence more ozone, peroxides and N-oxides are being formed TOA. I have a strong suspicion that peroxides are formed preferentially to ozone if more OH radicals are present, such as above the SH oceans. Hence, I think you will probably find more H2O2 in the middle of the “ozone hole”.
      So we are both in agreement that there never was a “ozone hole”.
      Now, looking at the absorption spectra of peroxide and ozone I was stunned about the similarities. They both show absorption in certain UV regions. What does this mean? Once the product is formed, and once the sun’s rays of this specific UV band occurs hit on the molecule, it starts re-radiating here. You can compare this process with putting on bright lights in misty conditions: The light is reflected back to you, blinding you.
      [this is because water vapor has absorption in the “visible’ region]
      In the case of these chemicals TOA, we speak of back radiation.
      Once hit by that specific UV radiation, in the absorptive range, about 50% of the light is deflected back into the direction where it came from. In the case of more ozone and peroxide being formed TOA, it means that less UV will come through and therefore the oceans will receive less heat. Hence we are cooling.
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/09/alarmism-claiming-normal-as-abnormal-began-on-a-global-scale-with-ozone/#comment-2255467

      • Thanks Henryp,
        I doubt I will ever catch up with the 21st century but that was a nice boost and should keep me a step or two ahead of the mindless masses.
        Cheers

      • Kind of muddled, though. The point is that UV photons can split an oxygen molecule into two independent atoms of oxygen, which is a highly unfavored state. These oxygen atoms can do all of three things: combine with an oxygen molecule (O2) to form ozone (O3); combine with a nitrogen molecule (N2) to form nitrous oxide (N2O), or combine with another oxygen atom to form an energetic molecule of oxygen. (I don’t know whether and to what extent UV can similarly split nitrogen molecules. Since nitrogen cannot form N3, the question may be moot.) These reactions are proportional to the chemical affinity and the relative population of dance partners. At the altitudes where this occurs, hardly any water (H2O) is present, so I wouldn’t be expecting much hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) to be observable.
        Oh, the utility of ozone is that it absorbs the REST of the UV coming down from the sun. Ozone formation only absorbs part of the UV.
        About half the UV gets sent back into space anyway from Rayleigh scattering.

        • Michael J. Dunn says
          (I don’t know whether and to what extent UV can similarly split nitrogen molecules. Since nitrogen cannot form N3, the question may be moot.) These reactions are proportional to the chemical affinity and the relative population of dance partners. At the altitudes where this occurs, hardly any water (H2O) is present, so I wouldn’t be expecting much hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) to be observable.
          Oh, the utility of ozone is that it absorbs the REST of the UV coming down from the sun. Ozone formation only absorbs part of the UV.
          About half the UV gets sent back into space anyway from Rayleigh scattering.
          Henry says
          Your comments at this time are a bit suspicious and somewhat dubious, at best. Are you out here to sow confusion?
          I have explained [to Phil.] that the big solar flares can produce particles that are so bad for you that they would kill you. Don’t go to Mars….[Anyway, I am not sure why anyone would go to Mars. Starting something in the middle of the Sahara desert has a much more reasonable chance of success?]
          I am pretty sure those most energetic solar particles can split up nitrogen. How would you know for sure that they cannot? I have read several papers showing that peroxides HxOx are formed TOA but I am too tired and too lazy to look it up now. I will wait for you to prove to me that it would not be reasonable for me to think that water vapor molecules can travel up TOA and be split up into OH radicals due to the extreme vacuum encountered.
          You don’t expect to see peroxides TOA? How would you know for sure if you have not measured?
          Like I said
          go measure
          go figure
          come back to me when you have actually measured something….
          [reading all my graphs of results published on this blog would be a beginning]
          Raleigh scattering is a term used by people for radiation returned to space of which the origin is not exactly certain….. unfortunately it includes back radiation caused by the O3, HxOx, NxOx,
          so bringing that up does not help much, except sow confusion….

      • Dear HenryP,
        1) Oxygen has a double-bond energy of 119 kcal/mole. A UV photon has to have this energy (or greater) to split an oxygen molecule into atomic oxygen. Nitrogen has a triple-bond energy of 226 kcal/mole, so there will be far less UV capable of dissociating the nitrogen molecule. The bond energy of a hydrogen attached to an oxygen is 111 kcal/mole, so it is very expectable that water would be dissociated by UV…but will probably recombine into water, hydrogen, and oxygen. HO2 is not a stable configuration, and a hydroxyl (OH) would have to meet another hydroxyl in order to beautiful music together. As it turns out, OH (and other radicals) mainly serve to reduce ozone back into oxygen.
        2) The ozone layer occurs at 20 to 30 km above the earth (mid stratosphere). At 25 km, the atmospheric pressure is 2.5 kPa (19 mmHg) and the temperature is about 221.65 K. The triple point of water occurs at 0.611 kPa and 273.16 K. Ice clouds can form at these altitudes, yes, but they are very thin. Cold air is very dry. I think I am justified in NOT EXPECTING MUCH HYDROGEN PEROXIDE (note the difference between “much” and “any”).
        3) Rayleigh scattering is an atmospheric light-propagation phenomenon proportional to the inverse fourth power of the wavelength, which is why the sky is blue. UV is scattered thoroughly, which means half of the photons will not reach the surface of the Earth. Infrared radiation is not affected by this. (It is scattered by other processes.)
        Suspect all you want; I can’t control your paranoia. Anything I have mentioned is based on scientific fact, as I have known and practiced it. What you have explained to Phil about solar particles (protons and electrons) is nonsense, as they have nothing to do with UV dissociation of atmospheric molecules. They are intercepted by the Van Allen belts and shielded by the ionosphere, far above the ozone layer. There is no point in arguing over facts.
        So, what are we left with, Hank? It is abundantly clear to me (if not to you) that you don’t know what I am talking about. And you haven’t done your homework in being knowledgeable about UV dissociation and Rayleigh scattering. Based on this encounter, reading all your graphs of all your results is not a prospect I would regard as being worth my time. There is nothing I need prove to you, If you find factual information “confusing,” you have a problem.

        • blah, blah ,blah
          blah, blah, blah
          you sound exactly like Phil.
          ….
          and what exactly did you measure yourself???

      • HenryP July 14, 2016 at 9:37 am
        I am pretty sure those most energetic solar particles can split up nitrogen.

        Yes they do, but up in the upper thermosphere well above the stratosphere where the atmosphere is mainly composed of N atoms, O atoms and helium.
        How would you know for sure that they cannot? I have read several papers showing that peroxides HxOx are formed TOA but I am too tired and too lazy to look it up now. I will wait for you to prove to me that it would not be reasonable for me to think that water vapor molecules can travel up TOA and be split up into OH radicals due to the extreme vacuum encountered.
        Water molecules have a hard time passing through the temperature minimum at the tropopause, water is formed ‘in situ’ by reactions with methane which is able to pass through the tropopause.
        You don’t expect to see peroxides TOA? How would you know for sure if you have not measured?
        Generally H2O2 is so unstable that it would only have a very short lifetime, measurements made in the stratosphere are about 100 ppt volume fraction. Compared with O3 at about 10ppm.
        Raleigh scattering is a term used by people for radiation returned to space of which the origin is not exactly certain….. unfortunately it includes back radiation caused by the O3, HxOx, NxOx,
        so bringing that up does not help much, except sow confusion….

        Wrong, Rayleigh scattering is the scattering by particles much smaller than the wavelength of the light. Because of the inverse dependence of Rayleigh scattering on the fourth power of the wavelength a substantial fraction of the incident UV light is scattered, approximately equal amounts forward and back scattered.

        • http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atmos/blusky.html
          clearly, they are talking about the back radiation caused by molecules in the air.
          we know that a number of components, like nitrogen have no absorption in their spectra, hence they allow all sunlight through. Some components, like O3 and H2O2 have absorption in the UV region. Hence, when UV falls on those molecules, approximately 50% of that light [absorptive region] is returned in the direction where it came from [some say 62.5%]
          Hence, ozone and H2O2 & others give you an anti-greenhouse effect. In fact, that effect is big. Much bigger than the actual GH effect caused by CO2….[think of the wavelengths involved]
          hence what is happening -to explain the Gleissberg cycle:
          => we have very low solar polar magnetic field strengths
          => we have more of the most energetic particles being released from the sun\
          => we have more ozone, peroxide and N-oxides being formed TOA
          = > we have more UV being back radiated to space
          = > we have less heat into the oceans
          = > hence we now are globally cooling.
          You, Phil. and Dunn, have this wonderful book knowledge but it seems to me you never actually measured anything yourself. I want to challenge you to go to Alaska and see if you can repeat my results on falling maximum temperatures, here:
          http://oi60.tinypic.com/2d7ja79.jpg

      • HenryP July 16, 2016 at 5:28 am
        http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atmos/blusky.html
        clearly, they are talking about the back radiation caused by molecules in the air.

        No clearly they are talking about Rayleigh scattering by molecules in the air which is elastic and occurs in all directions! Actually as you’ll see in the link below it is scattered in a figure 8 manner, with two equal lobes, one forward and one reverse with a minimum of ~50% at 90º to the line of illumination. Because of the inverse dependence on wavelength to the 4th power this is a very strong effect in the UV (~16X that at red wavelengths). This is responsible for the blue color of the sky (blue scatters ~4X red).
        http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~scarn/teaching/GE4250/scattering_lecture_slides.pdf
        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00260.1
        At high zenith angles almost all the UV is scattered by the time it reaches the surface. (See figure 1).
        Note because of the high cross section at those wavelengths there will be multiple scattering of the UV.
        One consequence of this scattering is that at the surface UV casts virtually no shadows! This is beautifully illustrated in that paper, (the UV lens they used is excellent, it’s the one I used in my lab for UV imaging measurements).
        we know that a number of components, like nitrogen have no absorption in their spectra, hence they allow all sunlight through.
        No, Rayleigh scattering has nothing to do with absorption, most of the R scattering in our atmosphere is by N2 and O2.
        Some components, like O3 and H2O2 have absorption in the UV region. Hence, when UV falls on those molecules, approximately 50% of that light [absorptive region] is returned in the direction where it came from [some say 62.5%]
        No, absorption of UV by O3 and H2O2 caused their photodissociation and therefore the absorbed energy is used in bond breaking and isn’t re-emitted!
        O3+uv -> O2 + O, H2O2 + uv -> 2OH also H2O2 + uv -> HO2 + H and H2O2 + uv -> H2O + O
        Subsequently that energy would end up heating the atmosphere.
        Hence, ozone and H2O2 & others give you an anti-greenhouse effect. In fact, that effect is big. Much bigger than the actual GH effect caused by CO2….[think of the wavelengths involved]
        Clearly not, this is based on your misunderstanding of the processes involved.
        You, Phil. and Dunn, have this wonderful book knowledge but it seems to me you never actually measured anything yourself.
        You, Henry, have very little of the required ‘book knowledge’ to discuss this matter, I suggest you read the two links above as a start.
        Contrary to your assumptions my career has been based on making measurements, including ~20 years as lead researcher in a world class research lab. involving inter alia developing laser diagnostic techniques for those measurements. Forty years ago I was responsible for the development of a novel light scattering instrument which was commercialized and revolutionized the industry. The method I developed in conjunction with an instrument manufacturer is now referred to as the ‘traditional’ technique, I’m getting old!
        One of the many places I’ve lectured on my research is Stellenbosch, perhaps you’ve heard of it Henry, did some wine tasting and whale watching while there as well.
        I want to challenge you to go to Alaska and see if you can repeat my results on falling maximum temperatures, here:
        If I go to Alaska it will most likely be to do some salmon fishing, did you actually make those measurements Henry?

        • Phil. says
          Subsequently that energy would end up heating the atmosphere.
          Henry says
          That is in fact the main big misunderstanding. Heating up the atmosphere is of no consequence because it has no mass…
          the oceans have great mass. Water has [some] absorption in the UV and all UV entering would eventually have to end up as heat. The variation of heat [UV] entering the oceans is what causes the Gleissberg cycle.
          I am a chemist and a statistician. As such, my main concern was to find an explanation for my own results….not those of others.
          Here is the one from southern Africa [Stellenbosch….etc…]
          https://i1.wp.com/oi58.tinypic.com/2mnhh74.jpg
          all original data [including Elmendorff/Alaska] come from tutiempo.net as I don’t trust any Anglo Saxon data anymore after finding some considerable deviation in results between those of Gibraltar [UK] and three stations around it; two in Spain and one in Morocco….
          As you can see, the data show that there never has been any warming here in southern Africa, never mind the AGW….
          How do I explain all the curves as published on the current blog fyi?
          I have always found that 4 points are sufficient to define function/relationship
          I started looking at AGW about 6 or 7 years ago as a hobby, starting out as a firm believer of agw
          At the end of all of my investigations – where I have to explain to myself what is happening…it is that a tiny amount of ozone and peroxides and N-oxides is what changes the amount of UV entering the oceans…
          it would be nice to meet you one day, though, because I enjoyed our conversations that gave me some directions in how to find an explanation for my own results. May be you have to go back to the very first graph that started off the whole discussion about the GH effect and the principle of re-radiation?
          At the end of the day [our lives] all our love for God and men and all our knowledge goes back into the box. But even, for those who know the Way, I am sure we will be able to discuss our disagreements as well, even beyond our life.

      • HenryP July 18, 2016 at 10:56 am
        Phil. says
        “Subsequently that energy would end up heating the atmosphere”.
        Henry says
        That is in fact the main big misunderstanding. Heating up the atmosphere is of no consequence because it has no mass…

        That wasn’t the issue Henry, what you said was:
        “Hence, when UV falls on those molecules, approximately 50% of that light [absorptive region] is returned in the direction where it came from [some say 62.5%]”
        As I pointed out above that isn’t true, that energy remains in the earth’s system, also the atmosphere has a heat capacity equivalent to the top 2.5m of ocean, it is not negligible (most of the deep ocean doesn’t mix with the upper ocean so doesn’t come into play on our short timescale).

      • HenryP July 19, 2016 at 11:35 am
        \phil. says
        the atmosphere has a heat capacity equivalent to the top 2.5m of ocean, it is not negligible (most of the deep ocean doesn’t mix with the upper ocean so doesn’t come into play on our short timescale
        /henry says
        well, surely this is where we disagree most
        the heat getting into the oceans is what determines T on earth
        the UV going into the oceans is what determines Tglobal

        Sorry Henry, most of the UV doesn’t make it to the surface (and only constitutes ~8% of the total insolation anyway), that’s what we’ve been talking about! The visible and near IR is what heats up the oceans.

  43. The Montreal Protocol was one of the most important decisions of our time. As I explained in an earlier post, chlorine depletes the ozone layer, and chlorine is abundantly present in chlorofluorocarbons, which were freely emitted to the atmosphere as CFC propellants in spray cans during the last third of the 20th century. CFCs are broken down on polar stratigraphic clouds, and my colleague, Peter Ward, and I have shown that the dramatic warming during that particular time interval was most likely caused by CFCs from spray cans, and other anthropogenic sources of CFCs, mundane though it may seem (https://www.amazon.com/What-Really-Causes-Global-Warming/dp/1630477982). Putting an end to global warming was not the reason for the Montreal Protocol, but it was its unintended consequence, hence the “hiatus” from 1998 to 2014. Under natural conditions, we show that destructive chlorine is supplied to Earth’s ozone layer by hydrogen chloride released from non-explosive (basaltic) volcanoes, which do not erupt ash and SO2 high in the stratosphere to form cooling aerosols, as explosive (andesitic) volcanoes do, hence the sudden uptick in warming in 2015 (Iceland’s Bardarbunga volcano). Warming is now returning to “normal.” Earth is a complex system, indeed the most complex we know, and simplistic and unproven views or assumptions, such as are expressed in this post, and “CO2 causes global warming,” are not helpful. We must therefore never forget that the release of chlorine to the atmosphere is likely the true cause of global warming, and we must do everything in our power to avoid it.

  44. H. L. Mencken understood it: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. ”
    ANY controversy is a lever that can be used to divide people, demonize one side (usually the rational side), and induce the other side (usually the more gullible) to support whomever screams loudest from the podium.

  45. This article is a good example of simplistic thinking. It ignores the presence and function of Earth’s massive Moon and the lack of an equivalent in the case of Venus or Mars. Moon stabilizes Earth’s axis, such that it’s inclination from a vertical to the plane of the ecliptic has never deviated more than a degree from its present 23½ degrees. Had Moon not been there, the axis would have been able to swing freely, allowing such inclinations around 90 degrees, which would have presented Earth’s polar regions to direct insolation for significant periods during the solstices. Earth’s oceans would not have survived the ensuing 24/7 insolation and would have first evaporated and then photodissociated, leaving Earth with a much-diminished hydrogen-to-deuterium ratio, such as is found on both Mars and Venus, both of which have lost their oceans due to insolation made possible by uncontrolled swings of their rotational axes. Interestingly, the hydrogen-to-deuterium ratio is lower on Venus than it is on Mars, indicating its more comprehensive loss of water. The “Godlilocks” model of life formation with simple distance from the primary star is obsolete, and should be discarded.

  46. Does anyone have a source for data showing how UVA and UVB radiation hitting the earth’s surface in the antarctic has changed over time? You know, how it must have increased as the “hole” enlarged? /sarc

  47. Climategate was a blessing for warmists. After the embarrassing quality of data keeping was revealed, clistrologists went over it with extreme diligence and found it was in fact worse than CRU thought.
    Turning a negative into a positive is how you survive in the modern world. They are role models for all with ambition to succeed.

  48. Dear Tim, begging your pardon, but my observation of the Ozone Hole issue started before the science got to it. What I suspected was a program for private commercial gain.
    The greatest lurk in business comes in three grades. #1. Persuade a government to mandate the use of your product, #2. Persuade a government to prohibit the use of your competitor’s product, and #3. Persuade a government to prohibit the use of your less profitable product, thereby mandating the use of your more profitable product.
    I strongly suspected #3 above at work. I have read since stories supporting that, indicating that the Science was bought. No doubt the success of the ozone hole program led the AGW push to follow the model, but I saw that as post facto.

Comments are closed.