Scientists Haven’t ‘Saved’ the Ozone Layer
Another year has passed, and that stubborn ‘Ozone Hole’ over Antarctica refuses to go away
Data from NASA shows that the area of the ‘Ozone Hole’ remains about the same as it has been over the last 30 years.
But will scientists admit that they didn’t save the ozone layer?
Background
Ozone is a gas made up of three oxygen atoms (O3). Ninety percent of the ozone in the atmosphere is found in the stratosphere, a layer of atmosphere between about 10 and 50 kilometers in altitude.
The amount of ozone in the atmosphere varies with time of year.
Dr. Mario Molina and Dr. Sherwood Rowland of the University of California published a paper in 1974 warning that industrial chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pollution was destroying the ozone layer in Earth’s stratosphere.
CFCs were gases used in hair spray, refrigerators, and insulating foams.
The theory of Molina and Rowland postulated that CFCs from human industry move upward through the atmosphere to the stratosphere, where ultraviolet radiation breaks down CFC molecules, releasing chlorine atoms.
Chlorine then acts as a catalyst to break down ozone molecules into oxygen, reducing the ozone concentration. According to the theory, the more CFCs consumed, the greater the destruction of the ozone layer.
In 1983, researchers from the British Antarctic Survey discovered a thinning of the ozone layer over Antarctica which occurred during August, September, and October.
This became known as the ‘Ozone Hole’, and appeared to confirm the theory of Molina and Rowland, who were awarded a Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1995 for their work.
Montreal Protocol (1987)
The ozone layer blocks ultraviolet rays, shielding the surface of the Earth from high-energy radiation. According to scientists, degradation of the layer would increase rates of skin cancer and cataracts and cause immune system problems in humans.
In Earth in the Balance (1992), Al Gore claimed that hunters reported finding blind rabbits in Patagonia and that fishermen were catching blind fish due to human destruction of the ozone layer, but this was not confirmed.
In 1987, 29 nations and the European Community signed the “Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer”. Over the next decade, signers of the treaty rose to over 180 nations, all agreeing to ban the use of CFCs.
Because of the Montreal Protocol ban, world consumption of ozone depleting substances (ODS), or chlorofluorocarbons, began falling in 1990. By 2005, ODS consumption was down 90 percent and is now down more than 99 percent, according to the European Environment Agency.
The result?
The Montreal Protocol was hailed as an example of international success of how nations could unite to resolve a major environmental issue.
But despite the elimination of CFCs, the ‘Ozone Hole’ remains as large as ever.
NASA reported this fall that the mean ‘ozone hole’ area for September 7 to October 13 again reached 23 million square kilometers, roughly the same level as in the last three decades stretching back to 1994–1995.
The hole remains large, despite that fact that world ODS consumption has almost been eliminated.
In 2015, scientists at NASA predicted that the ‘Ozone Hole’ would be half closed by 2020. That hasn’t happened
Other scientists have forecasted that the ‘hole’ will not begin to disappear until 2040 or later.
But the longer the ‘hole’ persists, the greater the likelihood that the ozone layer is dominated by natural factors, not human CFC emissions.
See more here masterresource.org
Bold and italic emphasis added
Editor’s note: Antarctic ozone was first measured in the International Geophysical Year of 1957, and there never has been a ‘hole’ in the ozone layer. There is a natural thinning over the poles that waxes and wanes, as seen in the image above. It there was an area with zero ozone over Antarctica, no-one would be able to live and work there.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Herb Rose
| #
The ozone scam was created by DuPont because their Freon patents were expiring and they had patents on the replacement. Perhaps this was the inspiration for Gore to create the Green House Gas scam. There is no science behind either scam, just corrupted “scientists” using gobbledegook to fool the public so politicians can steal money.
Ozone does nor block uv. It is created when uv is absorbed by O2 molecules and splits into oxygen atoms. During winter (night) the sun does not produce enough uv to maintain the ozone and its decay producing the “hole”. The change from 2 O3 molecules to 3 O2 molecules actually increases the shielding of uv by the atmosphere.
The whole scam was stupid. Argon is confined to the troposphere because its molecular weight (40) does not it allow it to get into the stratosphere yet CFCs with higher molecular weights could? The molecules are practically indestructible because of their chlorine and fluorine atoms but somehow not only do they rise in the atmosphere but they become vulnerable to decay. It is amazing how gullible “scientists” become when there is grant money involved.
Reply
Dale Horst
| #
Herb Rose:
If what you say is true, this is a game changer and the public needs to know about it. Do you have any sources or links to share? We all know it’s nonsense but most of us need proof.
Reply
Herb Rosr
| #
Hi Dale,
I believe that one of the originators of the theory confessed that it was done at the behest of Dupont but don’t have any reference. Perhaps one of the other readers can provide them
Herb
Reply
S.C.
| #
I was told the same thing back in the 90’s, that DuPont’s 99 year patent on R12 refrigerant was set to expire and the entire CFC/ozone narrative was created to phase it out and make the switch to R134 whose 99-year patent, oddly enough, was owned by none other than DuPont.
Reply
MattH
| #
Ultra violet light creates atomic dissociation allowing ozone forming.
During the peak of the solar cycle, as appears to have recently occurred, the solar flares release more ultraviolet light intensity which destroys ozone through atomic dissociation of other atmospheric molecules which allegedly then break down the ozone.
I have not researched on whether the increase in solar wind associated with solar flares has any direct influence on this process.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The ozone concentration of the ozone “layer” is 10 ppm. Anyone believing that this concentration can block 95% of the light of a spectrum should just use a i square cm of black tape per 100,000 square cm of a window to block 95% of visible light coming through it.
Reply
MattH
| #
The stratosphere is approximately 22 miles thick, not the thickness of a pane of glass.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
Have you considered the density of the molecules in the stratosphere?
Herb
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Herb. I consider the question an irrelevant distraction.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Herb. From NASA. I see your point.
The Dobson Unit (DU) is the unit of measure for total ozone. If you were to take all the ozone in a column of air stretching from the surface of the earth to space, and bring all that ozone to standard temperature (0 °Celsius) and pressure (1013.25 millibars, or one atmosphere, or “atm”), the column would be about 0.3 centimeters thick. Thus, the total ozone would be 0.3 atm-cm. To make the units easier to work with, the “Dobson Unit” is defined to be 0.001 atm-cm. Our 0.3 atm-cm would be 300 DU.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
I wonder if the destruction of the ozone has anything to do with the Earth’s magnetic field. The magnetic field deflects charged particles in the solar winds according to the right hand rule. Does the north magnetic pole located near the southern axis cause charged particles to destroy ozone molecules creating the hole? If so the variations of the size of the hole could be a result of solar flare activity which also affects the amount of uv radiation creating the ozone.
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,,
How is it that you ignore my explanation of the Antarctica winter ozone hole?
Have a good day
Reply
jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and MattH,
Has anybody eliminated POLAR ATMOSPERIC CIRCULATUON as possible factor in the formation of the “ozone hole”?
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The ozone hole occurs in the stratosphere.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and MattH,
Many globes ate mounted on a stand and the axis of the globe is inclined from vertical with the northern hemisphere at the top. Take such a globe system and turn ir upside-down and look directly downward at the globe’s axis. And you will see there are an east hemisphere and a west hemisphere and spin the globe toward the East. Now imagine the polar region is a “flat surface and imagine that the atmosphere spins with the surface and reason the atmosphere is being forced away from the Pole (axis). And you have a model which illustrates how the atmospher at the continent’ surface is being thrust away from the axis and this atmosphere is being replaced from above; creating an ozone hole since the atmosphere from above contains little, to no, ozone.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The ozone hole is not over the axis but offset. The sun still strikes the atmosphere over the pole, the hole happens where the sun doesn’t shine creating ozone.
Reply
jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
If you look at a globe you will see that Antarctica is also offset, But the sun does not strike the atmosphere over pole during the winter.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
How can you ignore what I have just written? (November 15, 2024 at 9:21 pm)
I call attention to an article I wrote some time ago and in my next comment I will specifically point to what observations Isaac Newton explained long ago.
Maybe Herb will ignore what Newton did so long ago as he (Herb) disregards what I have simply written without describing what wrong with my explanation of Antarctica ozone hole which explains it without any consideration of the chemistry involved.
Have a good day
https://principia-scientific.com/the-natural-world-is-cyclic/
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
“Newton’s great feat, which maybe is not commonly acknowledged, is he explained how there were two diurnal ocean tidal cycles each day which were obviously influenced by the moon’s cycle as it revolved (orbited) about the earth once about every 25 hours as the earth rotated about its axis with a period of 24 hours. ”
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Editor,
Which editor wrote “It there was an area with zero ozone over Antarctica, no-one would be able to live and work there.”? What observed evidence supports such a conclusion? I really expect answers (here) to these two questions.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Editor, Herb, and MattH,
Sir Edmund Hilllary has more direct experience with Antarctica than most others and In his 1961 book–No Latitude For Error–he wrote a 20 page chapter titled Antarctic Winter. Relative to my explanation fore the observed “Ozone Hole” I just quote “On May 14th Scottt Base was strict by the first real storm. We had a warning in the form of a rapid rise in temperature and then severe days the wind {near sea level] rarely dropped below forty miles an hour with long periods when it remained between sixty and ninety miles an hour. Herb, I ask you to explain from where all that atmosphere came.. And May 4 is more than a month before the Antarctic fall season.
Try to ignore. or explain away what Hillary experience which you and I have not. And read the next 15 pages of this chapter.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Were the observations in the troposphere or in the stratosphere, where the ozone hole is located?
Reply
jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and others,
I came here to correct my blunder. In the southern hemisphere May 14 is a month before the beginning of the southern winter. But Herb, I plainly wrote “the wind {near sea level], even if you could not look up Scott Base. And based on your comment I doubt if you have ever read about the Katabatibc winds which periodically drain the very cold atmosphere off the 4000 elevations of the Antarctic plateau. I admit my mistakes but I guess you may never have knowingly made a mistake.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb, MattH, PSI Editor and PSI Readers,
Background summary: “Dr. Mario Molina and Dr. Sherwood Rowland (R&R) of the University of California published a paper in 1974 warning that industrial chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pollution was destroying the ozone layer in Earth’s stratosphere. … This became known as the ‘Ozone Hole’, and appeared to confirm the theory of Molina and Rowland, who were awarded a Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1995 for their work.”
“Data from NASA shows that the area of the ‘Ozone Hole’ remains about the same as it has been over the last 30 years.” While 30 year might not be a long enough period to prove that Molina and Rowland theory is absolutely wrong; my explanation “Many globes ate mounted on a stand and the axis of the globe is inclined from vertical with the northern hemisphere at the top. Take such a globe system and turn ir upside-down and look directly downward at the globe’s axis. And you will see there are an east hemisphere and a west hemisphere and spin the globe toward the East. Now imagine the polar region is a “flat surface and imagine that the atmosphere spins with the surface and reason the atmosphere is being forced away from the Pole (axis). And you have a model which illustrates how the atmospher at the continent’ surface is being thrust away from the axis and this atmosphere is being replaced from above; creating an ozone hole since the atmosphere from above contains little, to no, ozone.” certainly is an alternative. An alternative about which I have not read But it is so simple and direct I have trouble not believing others, who are aware of this observed NATURAL PHENOMENA, have not considered my explanation.
But a question I ponder is how many people with my many scientific experiences are still aware of the “ozone hole”. For the fact is R&R’s paper was published in 1974 and not 1995. So I am going to fight because I have much experience (hence knowledge.
Have a good day=
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The atmosphere moves east faster than the surface of the Earth so it is not causing the eastward movement of the air. The speed of the rotating Earth is 1000 mi/hr at the equator but the speed slows as the diameter of the globe decreases. At the South Pole the rotational rate is 1 revolution/24 hrs, not enough to create a breeze.
The “ozone hole” is a make believe threat with no basis in reality. The contention that less ozone will lead to more uv light reaching the surface is utter nonsense. Ozone is created when uv light splits O2 molecules, creating oxygen atoms that form ozone. If there is no sunlight (as over the poles in winter) there is no uv to create ozone which means there is no uv to reach the surface. This is why when there is an “ozone hole” the amount of uv reaching the surface decreases instead of increasing.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You began “The atmosphere moves east faster than the surface of the Earth so it is not causing the eastward movement of the air.” You might reason why (how) this “observed fact” (OF) occurs but any reasoning does not change the OF.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Energy causes movement. The more energy, the greater the motion. The sun is providing energy to the surface of the Earth and to the atmosphere. The amount of energy is a function of distance from the source so both the atmosphere and the surface receive the same energy. The energy equalizes with the mass and since there are fewer air molecules they have greater energy and more motion.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and any other reads,
PSI has become the WORLD’S only valid SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL. This at the same time it also has become the world’s most complete NEWSPAPER’S editorial section. And the topic of this article is perhaps most important because it illustrates that mistakes common mistakes that have been made by SINCERE SCIENTIST’s who made STUPID MISTAKES which have continually need to be acknowledge and corrected. Such mistakes as rejecting the idea of continental drift for about half a recent half century..
I have just discovered a book that I had forgotten I had read before. It was written by J. D. Bernal and its title is A History of Classical Physics From Antiquity To The Quantum. And it well illustrated with figures published in the PAST. Bernal wrote his book because he considered the history he reviews had been forgotten.
Just as the history of the OZONE HOLE is not 30 years old but more than 50 year’s and the observed fact that an idea which earned two scientists a Nobel Prize has not yet been corrected with an alternative idea.
This comment brings PSI readers that no one has yet corrected the wrong idea because you (HERB) seem to refuse to consider the possible validity of my explanation of the OZONE HOLE.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Roser
| #
Your theory is ridiculous. It is based on conjecture that defies reality. You maintain that the rotation of the Earth is going to create a greater vacuum than the vacuum that exists in the stratosphere and suck ozone down into the troposphere. Explain why this only occurs in winter. Does the rotation of the Earth change in other seasons? You ignore the obvious (lack of uv to create ozone) and concoct some bizarre theory that nobody except you would accept as anything but mindless speculation. You claim to have knowledge but show no evidence of it or ability to think.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Thank you, thank you for what you wrote. For you seem to forget that I and anyone else can read what you wrote and what I wrote. So ask where did I write the word vacuum? And I ask have you never readable, or seen, the chemistry instrument known as the centrifuge?
You ask: “Explain why this only occurs in winter. Happy to: there is no solar radiation at the South Pole and its vicinity during the winter.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The Antarctica plateau has a circumference of 620 miles which rotates every 24 hours. Its perimeter travels at 25mph which wouldn’t produce 50 mph sustained winds and since it travels a constant speed, it would not produce the variable gusting winds that occur. Your centrifuge theory is stupid.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I am sure there is some reader just waiting to read your reply.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Thank you, thank you. I came to my computer this morning to give you and PSI readers a quote of Richard Feynman from his first lecture of The Feynman Lectures On Physics. If you do not know whom Richard Feynman was and what his lectures were, that is your PROBLEM. In the first chapter titled “Atoms in Motion” he taught “All things are made of atoms–little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being upon being squeezed into one another.”
He continued: “In that one sentence, you will SEE there there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little IMAGINATION and THINKING are applied.” (empathizes added)
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Readers,
As I have stated, I will not let this article disappear until my explanation is seriously discussed.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Readers,
As I have stated, I will not let this article disappear until my explanation is seriously discussed.
Have a good day
Reply
Whokoo
| #
Hi Jerry. Is talking to oneself serious discussion?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
hi Whokoo,
For decades I have written essays to myself as an attempt to SEE what I thought I knew. Try it; you might be surprise at how little you think you know just as I have discovered how little I knew. But I do suffer under the illusion that I do KNOW a little. And maybe today I will write what KNOW I discovered during the night.
Have a good day
Reply
Whokoo
| #
Good on you Jerry.
Some times you ask me questions but I have to prioritize the necessities of life, such as paying the bills, time being the devil that drives.
I found it interesting you recently stated that PSI is the leading scientific journal today, or something similar.
Have a good day yourself.
Reply
Jerrry Krause
| #
Hi howdy,
Have you ever read any part of The Feynman Lectures On Physics? I am just curious.
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
No, not my scene man.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Whokoo, James McGinn and Herb.
During the night I discovered I did not fundamentally understand the common the common phase diagram of water upon which James and Herb conclude that the earth’s atmosphere contains no independent water molecules as WE ALL OBSERVE that liquid water evaporates. To explain the observation, that liquid water evaporates, James proposes over and over that tiny particles of 10, or more, molecules are naturally ejected from the liquid water surface. And it seems Herb agrees.
Water’s phase diagram is a graphical figure where one axis of the graph is the measured vapor pressure of the liquid water and the other axis is the temperature of the liquid water. And LINES of the graph divide the phases of the water from each other. Hence, the term phase diagram.
I read old used text books of meteorological to gain a knowledge of this subject and two of these textbooks contain a GLOSSARY (a dictionary of precise definitions of words and terms used by meteorologists). One of the terms Is PARCEL OF AIR.
One textbook, has this rather long definition: “An arbitrary defined small-scale “bubble” of air that exhibits uniform conditions within its hypothetical borders.” The other’s definition is “An imaginary small body of air a few meters wide that is used to explain the behavior of air”. Whenever I read the latter I always SAID to myself, “this parcel is not imaginary, it is actual”
During last night I realized I said this because I am a chemist and chemists have to imagine the very, very tiny atoms and molecules which can never be seen with the most powerful microscope. But to the chemist these imagined atoms and molecules are REAL MATTER.
And another FACT is I like quotes. And in my personal copies of quotes I find: “The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” and “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” (Albert Einstein)
What I now now SEE, and can explain to James and Herb, is that every point of the phase diagram not on a equilibrium boundary line,, is not a non-equilibrium condition molecule and these many non-equilibrium water molecules will tend toward the nearest other phase as their temperatures cool or warm.
Have a good day
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
I appreciate your last paragraph explanation.
James and Herb refer to the phase diagram of water and that any temperature lower than the boiling point of water (100 degrees c) cannot allow a phase change from liquid to vapour.
The boiling point of water is a different animal than water becoming a vapour. Water does not need to boil to become a vapour, hence the basis of the planet earth’s weather cycle, oceanic water evaporating to eventually form clouds etc.
Good luck to all of them.
Reply