NASA-funded Network Tracks the Recent Rise and Fall of Ozone Depleting Pollutants

This article is nonsense. The hole in the ozone is in the SH, not the NH. If CFCs cause holes in the Ozone, they ought to be able to show correlations. Where are those studies?

All they have are dodgy models. Models proved wrong again and again.

My understanding is that blaming CFCs for ozone depletion (Rowland’s hypothesis) was unfounded for a number of reasons (given by Dr Edward Krug) not least that the mechanism could not be replicated in a laboratory or detected in the atmosphere. I recall that Al Gore fired Dr William Happer in 1993 just for suggesting that the ultraviolet monitoring program cancelled in 1985 should be refunded. As regards dodgy mechanisms I am reminded of both the acid rain story and the current AGW nonsense.

I’m still waiting for any proof that CFCs do actually operate in the atmosphere in the way that they are claimed to do.

Why not just tell us where the Stratospheric Ozone comes from in the first place?

Nah, thought not
That is a secret contained within The Emporer’s Wardrobe and in any case, they’re all too busy preoccupying with what’s in their ovens when they get home.
After they’ve been via the pub – to reward their self-important selves for another full day of Lying By Omission. On the taxpayer’s dime.

Bye the bye. Doesn’t the current rate of World Population Growth represent Six New Megacities being created annually? Me here is not impressed by your big numbers.

get a life please – before you trash everyone else’s.
muppets

I never really understood this ozone thingy. Not that that means anything. But consider this, the standard scenario. Far UV radiation, between 240 and 280 nm, is absorbed by Oxygen which splits the molecule and the free, naked Oxygen atoms combine with molecular Oxygen to Ozone. Ozone happens to absorb in the UV as well, between 290 and 300nm, a relatively narrow range compared with that of Oxygen. So, it is Oxygen that takes out the bulk of the far UV, not Ozone. Ergo, It is Oxygen that does the protecting, even if all Ozone would disappear.

As usual you follow the money, who got to make the billions from the substitute/s.

I cant remember the details now but i read it was a stitch up, pure bullshit as CFC’s were never proven to be doing any harm, it was something to do with the EU, and the companies involved.

Something to do with DuPonts patent expiring and a new patented product replacement, so banning CFC’s was to protect DuPont’s billions.

Because I see commentors agree with my idjit asessment, I offer the following practical exercise:
Take half a glass of water, swirl it in a circle. Observe the low pressure vortex in the centre.
Now imagine the glass is a planet spinning at one thousand miles an hour, and the water is the atmosphere.
Unless you can PROVE to me there is no such vortex at the north pole, I shall continue deriding anyone telling me about a “hole in the ozone”.
Oh, I forget, in the south it is called a hole in the ozone, in the north it is called a polar vortex, I’m so ignorant… One day I’ll find out ozone has an electrical charge, thank goodness that’s got nothing to do with magnetic fields of the sun, because “the earth’s magnetic field loosely follows the spinning axis”, as one genius informed me recently.

“Despite the monitoring success story, some emissions are still unaccounted for – and scientists have been unable to pinpoint where they are coming from due to current limitations of the monitoring network.”

Is that all? Perhaps lack of cooperation by Chinese authorities contributes? By now, all should understand that the Chinese Government cannot be trusted on any subject at any time and anywhere.

Ozone destruction is part of a ground level chemical process from pollution and not related to O3 in the stratosphere at all

Nitrogen dioxide and hydrocarbons in photo-chemical reactions produce Ozone at ground level and further chemical reactions destroy that ozone as part of a longer process that leaves ends up with smog, Ozone is destroyed in the smog creating process

O3 created by UV on the other hand as we know is created by photolysis, UV hitting O2. It is not destroyed as part of a more complicated chemical reaction, due to the pollution smog not actually existing over Antarctica (unless someone can point out this, I’ve not seen such a thing)

The general public and policy makers have no idea that these are two very different worlds

If the process for destroying so much O3 in the stratosphere existed, then so would stratospheric smog, so where is it?

The Montreal Protocol was an important lesson in the politics of science, but a very poor example of scientific process. Never proved the hypothesis but achieved political goals that enriched many people and made refrigeration and other industrial process more expensive with the worst impacts in the poorest nations. We are doing the same now with global warming. After achieving wealth and comfort in western nations by the use of cheap reliable energy systems we are trying to deny them to developing nations based on the myth that CO2 disrupts the many formidable natural climate processes.

The ozone depletion scam has been debunked for decades, yet they keep on promoting it. I guess that tells us that decades from now they’ll still be pushing the global warming scam.

I am not sure who I distrust more, NASA or China.

More GHG effect nonsense.

The ozone layer over the North Pole has shrunk at an above-average rate this winter. This was reported by the Jülich Research Center. According to the report, the ozone content has fallen steadily over the past three months and at the beginning of March was 18 percent below the values in winters without special weather influences.

According to the scientists led by Jülich stratosphere researchers Jens-Uwe Grooß and Rolf Müller, particularly low temperatures in the stratosphere, i.e. in the layer of air between eleven and fifty kilometers above the Earth’s surface, are responsible for this. A stable polar vortex also contributed to this, they say.  

German source

They don’t mention why the Chinese were making CFC-11 but they allude to it, CFC-11 is a very strong green house gas along with some of the HCFC compounds that come along as biproducts. So strong in fact that there was tremendous value in synthesizing the CFC/HCFC compounds and then destroying them to sell carbon credits to the EU. In fact 46% of the EU spending on carbon credits went to destroying the CFC/HCFC compounds. So that blip is a policy failure of epic proportions for perverse incentives.

This from notrickszone

https://notrickszone.com/2017/09/14/flashback-2007-scientists-reveal-they-no-longer-understand-how-ozone-holes-come-into-being/

“Stratospheric ozone, … helps shield us from the Sun’s harmful Ultraviolet (UV) rays.”

The destruction of Antarctic ozone starts in the Austral Winter, when no direct sunlight makes it to the ground, and it accelerates in the Spring from photo-catalytic decomposition of O3, when sunlight finally makes it to the ground. However, the sunlight has a long slant-range, passing through a much longer reach of air than for low-latitudes. Furthermore, the sunlight that makes it to the ground passes through stratospheric ozone outside the depleted polar region. Combined with the weak flux resulting from the Cosine Law, and the long path length, it doesn’t produce UV intensities that are of any particular concern. The chemists forget about the geometry.

Examine any map of Southern Hemisphere ozone during Winter. Two things stand out. The so-called Ozone Hole is delineated by the Circumpolar Vortex. The ‘Hole’ is asymmetrical because there is invariably an anomalously high ozone concentration outside the vortex; there is some diffusion through the wall of the vortex, replenishing some of the destroyed ozone.

As the sun climbs higher in the sky, and begins to provide a ‘threat’ that actually approaches UV levels commonly found in mid-latitudes, the air warms up and the vortex dissipates. As the ozone-enriched air mass outside the former vortex moves in to the formerly depleted region, the ozone level quickly comes back to the undepleted levels.

Note that NASA and others always cite the ozone concentration, in association with the potential for UV damage. It is exceedingly rare to see citations of actual measured surface UV fluxes. That is because levels commonly seen in the Australian deserts are never approached in Antarctica, or even the southern tip of South America.

The environmental impact of emissions from space launches: A comprehensive review

“AbstractWith the increasing accessibility of commercial space flight, the environmental impacts of space launches will become increasingly significant in the coming years. Here, for the first time, a review is presented of the environmental impacts of space launches, specifically of emissions from commonly used solid and liquid rocket propellants. While there are a number of environmental impacts resulting from the launch of space vehicles, the depletion of stratospheric ozone is the most studied and most immediately concerning. Solid rocket motors are the subject of most of the environmental studies on rocket launches, while the now more commonly used liquid rocket propellants are underrepresented in the literature. The limited studies of emissions from rocket engines using liquid propellent reveal that while they do result in stratospheric ozone loss, solid rocket motors are responsible for orders of magnitude greater loss. The comparison of commonly used propellants highlights the environmental trade-offs that must be made when selecting a launch system. This review highlights the need for further study of the cumulative impacts that frequent space launches have on all areas of the environment, including global climate, ecosystem toxicity, and human toxicity, and with consideration given to all commonly used propellants, to ensure that the impacts are well characterised and well understood before the number of launches greatly increases.”
The environmental impact of emissions from space launches: A comprehensive review – ScienceDirect

Rocket launches may need regulation to prevent ozone depletion, says study (phys.org)

One scientists has claimed the ozone hole was cause of increased temperatures and temperature will begin to drop as it closes

Do keep up. That’s all yesterday’s fish and chip wrappers and we’re into fish poop now-
Fish poop generates 1.65 BILLION tons of carbon in the ocean annually (msn.com)

Back in the early ’90s when my son was in fourth grade, he was assigned to make a Weekly Reader type report about the ozone hole. So he got on the internet as it was at that time and did some research. After a week, he came to me saying “Daddy, this doesn’t make sense.” What he had found is that stratospheric ozone is produced by certain wavelengths of UV light, then absorbs other wavelengths of UV light so that very little of the UV light reaches the earth. However, ozone also breaks down on its own, so that when production is reduced, such as over an Antarctic winter, there will be a thinning of the ozone over Antarctica.

He also recognized that CFCs are fairly heavy molecules, making it very unlikely that any ground-based CFCs would reach the stratosphere in any significant amounts. (CFCs used to be used in fire extinguishers because of their heavy weight.)

Then I remembered something I learned in organic chemistry, namely that CFCs are some of the most stable compounds known, because of the strong affinity of the halogen elements for carbon. Especially the lighter halogens of fluorine and chlorine. That’s why chlorine is added to city water supplies as an antibiotic—it literally tears the little buggers apart to bind to the carbon.

My son was really in a bind, because researchers claimed that there was significant amounts of CFCs in the stratosphere. Where did they come from? This was shortly after the eruption of Mount Pinotubo in the Philippines. According to researchers, that eruption injected megatons each of CO2, HFl and HCl into the stratosphere (why they weren’t combined in the eruption was not explained).

My son’s conclusion based on the above was as follows: with the strong affinity of the lighter halogens for carbon, they then displaced the oxygen in the CO2 to form CFCs. The displaced oxygen ions then combined with the unstable ozone to form O2 and thin the ozone layer world wide. The displaced oxygen also combined with the rejected hydrogen to make some stratospheric H2O as well as some of the hydrogen combined to make H2. Ground based CFCs had negligible if any effect on stratospheric ozone.

The teacher was not impressed.

I learned something from my son, because I had not looked into the subject before his assignment.