or Should the Montreal Protocol be terminated?
Mike Jonas,
For years, I had wondered about the Montreal Protocol and the ozone hole that started in 1979, and whether the science behind it all had been twisted to suit DuPont or others. But where would you look to find the answer? Then, last year, I saw a report that the ozone hole, which had been recovering as expected, was suddenly as large as ever. It could have been this report. So I started downloading some data. I knew that it would be a lot of work, I had no idea exactly what I would be looking for, and I suspected that I wouldn’t find anything. Lots of others must have looked and found nothing.
I was stunned by the first significant thing I found: There was an ozone hole long before 1979.
But first, why did I suspect twisting by DuPont? Well, I think ‘everyone’ did back then, but no-one could prove anything. It certainly looked like some sort of shenanigans were going on. For a start, the ozone hole was defined in the 1980s as the area of ozone less than 220 Dobson Units (DU). Why precisely 220? Well, it was clear that the number 220 was chosen so that the ozone hole started in 1979. A different number would have given a different start date, and it seems they really did want the ozone hole to start in 1979. It had nothing to do with 220 DU being some sort of safe level, the number was plucked out of the air just like today’s ‘need’ to restrict global warming to precisely 1.5C. DuPont’s lucrative patent for Freon (basically a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)) expired in 1979. In 1974, with their Freon income to protect, the Chair of DuPont said that “ozone depletion theory is “a science fiction tale … a load of rubbish … utter nonsense”“. But in the 1980s DuPont changed its tune when it was clear that they would profit more from a replacement product. The prime function of the Montreal Protocol seems to be to sustain the manufacture of unnecessarily expensive refrigerants. Incidentally, Wikipedia joined in the shenanigans, no doubt for its own purposes, using the ozone hole to attack Fred Singer. Wikipedia (thank you, Wayback Machine), said: “Some atmospheric scientists (for instance Fred Singer, founder of SEPP and also a global warming skeptic) and industry-sponsored advocacy groups question or completely deny a link between CFCs and ozone depletion. It is fairly common to see completely nonsensical arguments …“. Today’s Wikipedia entry has no mention of Fred Singer or the “completely nonsensical arguments” which appear not to have been said by him anyway.
But I digress.
I downloaded a lot of data files for the southern hemisphere (Willis Eschenbach knows all about how many files you need to download sometimes), and loaded them into old-fashioned spreadsheets in my ancient desktop (sorry, w, I never got round to using R). When I looked at the ozone data for the south pole, there were ozone holes in 1964, 1966, 1969, 1974 and 1977. They may have been less pronounced than in more recent years, but they were there. I have written it up, it has been published, and my paper is open-access at WJARR. CFCs were oh so close to zero at the first of those ozone holes …….
There are obvious questions arising from this: If the ozone measurements at the South Pole showed column ozone repeatedly below 220 DU well before 1979, how could NASA’s Ozone Watch say ” total ozone values of less than 220 Dobson Units were not found in the historic observations over Antarctica prior to 1979“? Were NASA lying, or had they simply not seen the data? If they hadn’t seen the data then did they make their statement without checking the data? The South Pole would have to be the first place to look for pre-1979 ozone data relevant to the ozone hole. Or had the data been found to be wrong? – I could find no reference in the literature to the ozone data having been wrong.
If the gatekeepers ever take the trouble to refute my finding, maybe they will do it the way they refuted Qing-Bin Lu’s 2022 finding of a tropical ‘ozone hole’ – they refuted it by deflection (I refer to Qing-Bin Lu’s paper in my paper). Qing-Bin Lu was very careful to say that the standard definition of an ozone hole – ozone less than 220 DU – was not used, but the critics managed to leverage “looking at percentage changes in ozone, rather than absolute changes” into “the research was riddled with serious errors and unsubstantiated assertions“. The detail in the criticisms actually supports Qing-Bin Lu’s findings, but it seems the critics just didn’t want an ozone hole anywhere outside the Antarctic. Another curious thing about it all is that Qing-Bin Lu was giving them another opportunity for scare-mongering – why didn’t they take that up? Was it because this ‘ozone hole’, reportedly seven times larger than the Antarctic ozone hole and above where a lot of people actually lived, was natural?
The other thing of note that I found as I ploughed through the data was that the annual ozone minima not only didn’t correlate very well with CFC data, but also looked more like a phase change. Here’s my Figure 4, illustrating it:
I was careful to derive the phases mathematically not manually, but it would obviously be credible to draw the phases differently. I did a check through the literature, and Bingo! an early 1980s phase change in south pole surface temperature had been detected (Lazzara et al 2012). Then I checked the south pole radiosonde temperature data, and there was a temperature phase change in the lower stratosphere and in the troposphere too. Everything tallied. Another thing I discovered after submitting the paper was that Qing-Bin Lu’s tropical ‘ozone hole’ is thought to have started in the 1980s – that tallies too.
My paper covers both the non-correlation of ozone with CFCs and the matching phase changes in ozone and temperature. Those who don’t like non-emphatic words like ‘could’ and ‘suggests’ will be disappointed, but it really isn’t possible to prove much definitively from correlation or non-correlation with limited data. The analysis is complicated by the relationship between ozone and temperature being bi-directional (each affects the other), and of course, air moves. My paper does not argue against chemical reactions involving ozone and CFCs, but it does highlight that it really isn’t known just how much of the ozone hole the CFCs are responsible for.
Incidentally, the fact that air moves is very relevant. Say there’s an ozone hole near the south pole. Then it moves a little. One day, ozone at the south pole is over 220 DU, the next day it’s under. The ozone hole hasn’t changed at all, it just moved a little. There are many days in the south pole ozone record where there is a large change from the previous day.
My paper’s Abstract:
Abstract
Depletion of ozone over Antarctica was first observed in the late 1970s, and discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole was announced in the 1980s as having started in 1979. The ozone hole was defined as the area with total column ozone less than 220 Dobson units. Analysis of ozone, temperature, chlorofluorocarbon and nitrous oxide data from 1963 onwards suggests that the annual ozone minimum at the South Pole is related to lower stratospheric temperature independently of chlorofluorocarbons and nitrous oxide. There were ozone holes, ie. column ozone less than 220 Dobson Units, at the South Pole in several years before 1979 (the date that the ozone hole is reported to have first appeared) when chlorofluorocarbon concentrations were much lower than today and lower than in 1979. An early 1980s phase change in the lower stratospheric temperature at the South Pole at altitudes between 250 hPa and 100 hPa, and at some lower altitudes, coincides with a phase change in the annual South Pole ozone minimum. The phase change is not visible in chlorofluorocarbon or nitrous oxide data. This raises the possibility that, over a multi-annual or decadal timescale, lower stratospheric temperature has more effect than chlorofluorocarbons or nitrous oxide on atmospheric ozone concentration over the South Pole. Alternatively, temperature and ozone may both be reacting to some other influence.
The paper is open access and can be read in full at https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2024-0531.pdf.
I mentioned above that this study would be a lot of work. A lot of the work is ploughing through the literature to see what has been discovered already, and checking that what I was finding hadn’t been found or refuted already. As I read the literature, I formed the opinion that a lot of scientists were sceptical of the CFC-depletion narrative, but they couldn’t quite put their finger on anything that definitively disproved it, so they were restricted in what they could say about it. Maybe my findings will help. Or, if NASA really did lie about ozone levels, or even if they simply ignored the data, then should the Montreal Protocol be ditched anyway?
There’s a really interesting statement in a phys.org article: “Lu’s observation of the ozone hole comes as a surprise to his peers in the scientific community, since it was not predicted by conventional photochemical models. His observed data agree well with the cosmic-ray-driven electron reaction (CRE) model and strongly indicate the identical physical mechanism working for both Antarctic and tropical ozone holes.“. Unfortunately, I didn’t see that until later.
I ask above whether the Montreal Protocol should be ditched. My study didn’t look at CFC chemistry, so it isn’t about that. The question is whether the Montreal Protocol is based on a lie. If CFCs are to be banned, they should only be banned for a valid reason. And remember, CFCs were very close to zero at the first of those ozone holes and there is no fuss about natural ozone depletion over where millions of people actually live. But in the paper I couldn’t say explicitly that anyone lied, so I said we would have to wait until ozone levels correlate with one of temperature and CFCs more than with the other. That could take a long time, especially if there’s another phase change. The reality is I suspect even worse – we will have to wait for the gatekeepers to get out of the way.
PS.
In the man-made CO2 “climate change” narrative, increasing CO2 supposedly cools the stratosphere. A global phase change in stratospheric temperature followed by decades of no temperature trend would pretty well knock that narrative on the head too. Qing-Bin Lu: “all the datasets show that significant O3[ozone] or LST [Lower Stratospheric Temperature] reductions only occurred in the 1980s and 1990s with no significant trends over the past ∼25 years. This is similar to the observation by Polvani et al. and that reported in the newest IPCC AR6. The latter states “most datasets show that lower stratospheric temperatures have stabilized since the mid-1990s with no significant change over the last 20 years” “. [my bold] Maybe that’s another reason why they were so keen to tear down Qing-Bin Lu’s paper.
Addendum from Charles
The article above leaves out the fact that satellite observations began just as the “Hole” was “Discovered” with the launch of The Nimbus 7 satellite on October 4th 1978. The Nimbus 7 contained the TOMS (Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer).
Initially, the dearth of ozone was not noticed because the data was so far off from the expected range that it was discarded as invalid by the data processing algorithms. When the fact that something like 2/3rds of the instrument’s measurements were being discarded was finally noticed and analyzed, that’s when the panic set in about the “Hole in the Ozone”.
While the article above does cite a distinct global polar temperature regime change in the late 70’s that probably affected the ozone levels, it just seems too much of a coincidence that the panic set in just as a new measurement technique was deployed. Supposedly the TOMS measurements match ground based measurements to a reasonable degree; however, like the fact that “sea level acceleration” only shows up in Jason satellite measurements and not in tide gauges, there is a not insignificant chance that the “Ozone Hole” is an artifact of instrument changes.
Here is a clip from a PBS documentary on the discovery of the “Hole” describing the discarding of out of expected range measurements and the ensuing panic when the data didn’t match preconceived expectations.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Back in 1992 Rogelio Maduro and Ralf Schauerhammer wrote a book titled “The Holes in the Ozone Scare”. Basically, the ozone hole above the Antarctic is an annual event. It is characterized by the absence of the sun for many months during which a very violent polar vortex of air currents forms. “This winter vortex prevents the arrival above the Antarctica continent of air masses located at latitudes lower and ozone richer. The very cold and hence more dense air of the high altitudes thus falls downward, due to gravity, and empties the stratosphere of a good part of its summer ozone.
The so-called hole, generated during the winter, cannot be replenished with ozone during the long polar night, simply because of the lack of tropical air. When day has returned but the “hole” is still at its maximum (in October, before the vortex completely breaks up, allowing ozone-rich air from the tropics to refill it, and before ozone begins to be generated by solar radiation reaching Antarctica).”
Once the austral spring starts and sunlight again shines on the Antarctica air mass the vortex breaks up and within a month and a half the ozone levels return to normal.
During this period I think Sallie Balinus and Willie Soon took a stand against the ozone hole narrative of CFCs.
“This winter vortex prevents the arrival above the Antarctica continent of air masses located at latitudes lower and ozone richer. The very cold and hence more dense air of the high altitudes thus falls downward, due to gravity, and empties the stratosphere of a good part of its summer ozone.”
And yet the Ozone concentration above ~22km does not change in the winter, whereas below there to ~15km the O3 is totally destroyed, how can that mechanism achieve that?
“The so-called hole, generated during the winter,”
It is not generated ‘during the winter’, it is during the spring.
I have not read all of the article or the comments, but an uptick in skin cancer that could be attributed to the fake ozone hole (rather than outdoor lifestyle choices) I believe has never been shown to have happened. If it had happened, it would have been big news. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I believe that there has been an increase in melanoma — on the soles of people’s feet and their legs where one rarely gets a sun burn.
on no. We’re all going to die.
Two belated observations about the Antarctic ‘ozone hole’.
It wasn’t expected to fix it in 40 years because of the lifetime of CCs in th eatnosphere, currently they’re down by 26%.
I always thought CFC’s had to be dissociated into chlorine atoms and thus destroyed first before they could attack ozone.
Either CFC’s have long half lives, meaning they are essentially inert, or they are reactive enough to destroy millions of tons of ozone per year, meaning that they are consumed rapidly.
Some of the CFCs are broken down into ClO on the stratospheric cloud particles which when released can destroy O3 catalytically and thus are regenerated, consequently an individual ClO molecule can destroy a million O3 molecules. That’s why the destruction only occurs it the range of altitudes where the clouds are formed.
Actually, chlorine monoxide is unreactive towards ozone. The radical carrier is the chlorine atom, which is regenerated by reaction of chlorine monoxide with atomic oxygen. How do you know that atomic chlorine is not produced in the absence of CFC’s?
The key mechanism is the ClO chain which leads to destruction of the O3 and regeneration of the ClO leading to continuous destruction unless the CiO is taken out by reaction with another species such as methane. Typically a single ClO molecule will take out very many O3 molecules before it’s lost to the system.
CIO + CIO + M -> C12O2
Cl2O2 + hv — Cl + ClOO
ClOO+M—Cl+O2 +M
Cl + O3 — CIO + O2
Cl + O3 — CIO + O2
Net:2O3-*3O2
The origin of Chlorine in the stratosphere is predominantly CFCs as most of the naturally occurring chlorine containing molecules are reactive and water soluble and get washed out of the lower atmosphere. The detection of HF in the stratosphere is indicative of this since it is produced as a breakdown product of CFCs. ClO has been shown to form in the stratosphere after the formation of polar stratospheric clouds
You make the probably false assertion that naturally occurring organochlorines are water soluble and do not reach the stratosphere. Marine organisms produce an estimated 4 million tonnes of chloromethane each year. How do you know this is not the origin of stratospheric chlorine?
HF is ejected in large quantities by volcanic eruptions, so its presence is not evidence of CFC’s.
You have not explained the observation of ozone depletion in the 1920’s.
“Marine organisms produce an estimated 4 million tonnes of chloromethane each year. How do you know this is not the origin of stratospheric chlorine?”
Because chloromethanes have a lifetime in the atmosphere of less than a year due to reactions with OH etc and the products such as HCl are washed out of the air.
“Hydrogen fluoride (HF) is the most abundant fluorine reservoir in the stratosphere with main sources arising from the atmospheric degradation of CFC-12 (CCl2F2), CFC-11 (CCl3F), HCFC-22 (CHClF2), and CFC-113 (CCl2FCClF2), ozone-depleting species whose emissions are anthropogenic.”
https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/15/34361/2015/acpd-15-34361-2015.pdf
Also an important precursor of HF in the stratosphere from the breakdown of CFCs is COF2 which is observed in the stratosphere and is not due to volcanoes.
You have not provided any evidence of ozone depletion from the 1920’s (only very few sites of measurements at that time in Europe).
Forty Years’ Research on Atmospheric Ozone at Oxford: a History
G. M. B. Dobson
LINK
He is the one who started measuring the Ozone layer in the 1920’s and more in the 19 page report. There were low ozone levels measured in the 1920’s to the 1950’s which is why they pulled that 220 units out of the air to pretend that previous low values didn’t happen and hide Dobsons research that spanned 40 years.
Interesting. And a reminder of how difficult some research was back then. Thanks.
Perhaps Phil could explain why ozone depletion was observed before the introduction of CFC’s.
It wasn’t, the Antarctic O3 levels in the 50s were around 300 which was a bit lower than the Arctic values, that is now known to be due to the isolating effect of the strong polar vortex preventing the incursion of more O3 from the rest of the atmosphere. The subsequent large drop below 200 following the 70s was the effect of the CFCs. As pointed out above CFCs were introduced in the 30s.
The measurements in the Antarctic described by Dobson didn’t start until IGY (1957) and the results were shown to be lower than the Arctic during the winter (but still around 300). Dobson explained that in 1968 as follows:
“It was clear that the winter vortex over the South Pole was maintained late into the spring and that this kept the ozone values low. When it suddenly broke up in November both the ozone values and the stratosphere temperatures suddenly rose”
That is not the cause of the much lower levels observed these days which never get as high as measured then (400).
Before reading a word on the subject I point out that some civil service jobs would become obsolete by acknowledging reality so it can not happen.
Charles, you are correct. We did not know that hole existed until, out of curiosity, we flew the satellite. The hole could have been there for millions of years or formed the day before it was launched. There is know way to know.
The discovery of the ozone whole had nothing to do with the satellite, it was due to ground based measurements that had been made since the 50s.
Thank you for confirming that the hole preceded the satellite measurements.
Yes by a couple of years in the 70s, the measurements were started in the 50’s but the rapid decline didn’t start until the 70s.
Correction: since the 1920’s. See Sunsettommy’s post above.
Not in the Antarctic, those measurements started in 1957.
Good, you accept that ozone depletion, at least in the Arctic, was already a observed fact in the 1920’s. Do you think the mechanism of ozone depletion in the Arctic differs from that in the Antarctic?
No, as I’ve pointed out measurements were not made until the 50s, significant depletion in the late 70s. Chemical depletion the same in both locations other necessary conditions such as temperature and PSCs are different .
Dobson writing about the earliest measurements from1926-7:
It was at once noticed that there had been a large increase in the ozone values since the measurements made during the previous autumn. At that time nothing was known about the annual variation of the amount of ozone and it was natural to expect that, if there was any annual variation, the maximum would be in summer and the minimum in winter. As the measurements continued it became clear that the high ozone values were a characteristic of spring, especially when the values began to fall during the summer. By the following autumn the maximum in the spring and the minimum in the autumn had become fairly well established, though the reason for this peculiar annual variation was not known.’
That measurement was certainly not made in the Antarctic, probably Oxford?
I’m just a dumb SOB, but it seems to me that ozone isn’t needed over Antarctica so what’s the big fuss
I always thought the theory about CFCs and upper atmospheric ozone was junk science. It simply cannot be the case that the man made CFCs affect the amount of chlorine in the ozone layer. There is an infinite amount of atomic chlorine available at the interface between the oceans and the atmosphere (70% of the earth’s surface). Some of it gets sucked up in updrafts that form weather phenomena such as thunderstorms and hurricanes. I would wager that the amount of chlorine pumped into the stratosphere by the average Cat 1 hurricane exceeds the amount of manufactured chlorine compounds by several orders of magnitude. Beyond that CFCs are relatively inert. The carbon binds the Chlorine very well. They are also heavier than natural atomic chlorine and would tend to fall down more quickly.
Another pointer to early detection of the ozone hole comes from the early Antarctic exploration. The explorers in the Scot, Shackleton, and other expeditions experienced sever snow blindness. These men were experienced in Arctic conditions. They experienced something unexpected. The conditions in the Antarctic were different to those in the Arctic.
and a couple of yrs ago an outcry about ozone hole over UK..there were supercold upperlevel temps, seems upperlevel colds a BIG driver ?
think it was like the minus 85c mentioned like for noctilucent clouds as well
An interesting factoid: September 11, 2017 was the smallest Antarctic ozone ‘hole’ since 1988. It was hailed as proof the Montreal Protocol was working as promised. It was also a warm El Nino year.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/91212/ozone-hole-is-smallest-since-1988
Then the bottom fell out the next year when the minimum ozone levels dropped to what had been typical in the 1990s, and have been flat since then.
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/statistics/annual_data.html
The Montreal Protocol should have been ditched before it was ever implemented, since it was based on junk science.