That Other Travesty of Science: The Ozone ‘Hole’
image source: earthhow.com
I am a former DuPont Chemical Engineer who worked predominately in heavy industrial chemicals (now Chemours). I receive particular satisfaction in debunking the travesties of science which have afflicted society.
It is all but impossible to obtain peer review, (aka the Buddy System), to be published in any major technical journal.
My latest effort has addressed the bogus claims of man-made “ozone depletion”.
The ozone “hole” is really just a thinning. Ozone is produced by solar radiation at stratospheric elevations converting O2 to O3. Ozone is therefore not produced during the polar winters and is at its lowest level in the polar springtime. It recovers during the sunlit summers.
In 1958, Eugene Parker developed a theory showing how the Sun’s hot corona — by then known to be millions of degrees Fahrenheit — is so hot that it overcomes the Sun’s gravity and generates the solar wind, a stream of free protons and electrons (plasma) moving at speeds up to 1.8 million miles per hour.
A year later, the Soviet spacecraft Luna 1 detected solar wind particles in space, and in 1962 the observations were confirmed by NASA’s Mariner 2 spacecraft.
The solar wind is deflected by the Earth’s magnetic field but such protection does not extend over the polar regions. Ozone production varies from summer to winter but ozone is ripped off continuously.
Due to the vigorous circumpolar winds (Antarctica’s polar vortex), the atmosphere above Antarctica is largely confined. Any ozone produced in mid-latitude regions does not bleed into the stratosphere over Antarctica. Therefore, the thinning of the ozone is most pronounced at the South Pole. The polar vortex of the Arctic wanders due to the different geography and topography, so mid-latitude ozone does bleed into the Arctic.
In the winter of 2019-2020 the northern polar vortex remained very stable and provided the same isolating conditions as the Antarctic. The Arctic was particularly cold, setting record low temperatures in northern Greenland.
In 1957, the British Antarctic Survey conducted balloon sampling of Antarctica’s atmosphere with a Dobson Spectrophotometer. These measurements gave the first clues that there was a seasonal thinning of the ozone layer. This was the basis for laboratory work by Molina & Rowland and their 1974 paper about the destruction of ozone by chlorine or bromine. It was just assumed that the chlorine and bromine in the Antarctic atmosphere came from chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), yet it is known that a great number of chlorine and bromine compounds are emitted from volcanoes — such as Antarctica’s Mt. Erebus as published by Science Direct’s, Elsevier. [1]
Routine monitoring of Antarctica’s ozone layer began in earnest in 1985 (J.C. Farman, et al) and continues today. The seasonal waxing and waning are well documented.
The 1974 paper by Molina and Rowland was conducted in a laboratory and no solar wind blew thru their lab hood nor did they have volcanoes nor the downdrafts of a heavy rain storm in their lab hood observations. Molina and Rowland developed the premise of a “one dimensional diffusion model” based upon Brownian motion.
That is, Molina and Rowland stated that the CFCs, which are 1.4 to 3.7x heavier than air, just go straight up.
In fact, any CFCs released at the surface just stay down here. Moreover, Molina and Rowland stated that the CFCs are not soluble in water so rainwater would not scrub them out of the air. Big deal. Rains bring downdrafts. CFC and several organics also adsorb on dust particles as well as aerosols.
Molina and Rowland were awarded the Nobel Prize for their pronouncement about CFCs and ozone destruction. The cash award for the Nobel Prize is approx. $900,000. The Nobel Prize can also serve as an excellent door stop or shim for a wobbly table.
Furthermore, Dr. Gordon Gribble of Dartmouth has catalogued thousands of naturally occurring 
chlorinated and brominated compounds, including CFCs emitted by volcanoes — even though it was claimed that CFCs are strictly man-made. [2]
It is known that Mt. Erebus delivers chlorinated and brominated compounds in trace amounts over Antarctica. Likewise, the volcanoes of Iceland deliver these halogenated compounds into the Arctic. These heavy compounds just drift back down although there is always a trace equilibrium presence.
The Montreal Protocol to replace CFCs was established in 1987. All nations self-report and nobody can audit anybody. All of the original Freons@R are still produced in China and sold around the world. The specific location is known from downwind sampling over the Pacific Ocean.
You can also buy any of these original refrigerants on eBay or Amazon. [3.4]
But Whoo-Hoo !! We have won the war on Chlorine and Bromine !! Now onto the war on Carbon !!
If you declare war on elements of the Periodic Table, you gonna lose.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231015304246
[2] https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783211993224
[3] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02109-2
[4] https://www.ebay.com/p/1232730084
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Carbon Bigfoot
| #
Now if can you can only get a post approved on AIChE’s Engage forum. I was censored for comments about carbon dioxide at levels of 400 ppm in a chaotic climate system. As a PE ChE, I can’t believe chemical engineers that reside on that forum are really that ignorant. By the by, I worked at Louvers Small Projects department in the 80s. What a cadre of talent I had at my disposable to assist me in project execution. .
Never believed in the science behind the Montreal Protocol. Many thanks for the clarity on this issue.
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
Brilliant write-up, Richard Cronin. It confirms my independent ozone research in one clear, succinct source.
I especially liked: “The Nobel Prize can also serve as an excellent door stop or shim for a wobbly table.”
Thanks!
Reply
Wolfgang Richter
| #
Climate change by CFCs
Please look on the paper “Substantial twentieth-century Arctic warming caused by ozone-depleting substances”, found here http://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0677-4 in “nature climate change”.
This paper says that the CFCs, here named ODS, weren’t reduced and they contributed to half of the warming of the arctic region and to one third of the global warming since the 1950s.
This paper says indirectly, that the CO2 is not contributing as much as believed to the global warming.
When I interpret the IPCC-saying in the AR5, that more than half of the warming since the 1950s is anthropogenic and I suppose this more than half is 2/3, letting 1/3 for the sun and all natural sources for warming since the “little ice age”, the contribution of CO2 is halved.
With other words: this finding could or should end the climatism —- I hope.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Does ozone depletion explain lunar warming?
http://phzoe.com/2020/04/12/lunar-warming/
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Richard (Dick),
We are friends, right? Your very informative article has one ‘big’ mistake which was the same reasonings Molina and Rowland made the Dupont chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) nasty chemicals. They, and you, ignore the katabatic winds which ‘pour’ off the high plateau and down the steep slopes of the Antarctic continent during the winter. You ignore the cold air masses that flow down the Red River valley into the midsection of the USA and spread south to freeze plants in Florida and Texas.
These atmospheric layers at the Earth’s surfaces must be replaced by the upper atmosphere that is over the poles during these pole’s winters. Which upper atmosphere forms the ‘polar vortex’s as they flow toward the poles at all the upper elevations in the stratosphere and mesosphere as well as in the upper troposphere where the polar vortexes are observed to be formed.. For atmospheric sounding balloons only rise to about 30km altitudes which is a base altitude at which the the ozone molecules are being formed. I read that 50km is the altitude of maximum production oi the ozone in the tropics.
Both Molina and Rowland and you seem to ignore the natural circulation, at the higher latitudes and the higher altitudes during the hemisphere’s winter season. That which goes up must come down or vice versa–that which what comes down must somewhere go up.
Hope we are still friends. Thank you for giving me a focus for which I have long reasoned.
But as you know it is hard to get anyone to listen to ideas different than their own.
Have a good day, Jerry
.
Reply
Jan Sevenhans
| #
2 Holes in Earth Ozone Layer … Why ? Earth Centrifugal Force Makes Them …
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/2-holes-earth-ozone-layer-why-centifugal-force-makes-them-sevenhans/
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Jan,
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” (Einstein)
When one averages the temperature of a day, one ignores the fact that the Earth rotates about an axis through the poles. If one goes to your link, one will find the Truth because it is an observation and not a scientific idea which can never be a Truth.
Good to meet you Jan.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Matt
| #
Great quote by Einstein thank you Jerry. Neither cheesy or vacuous.
Nice also that Jan Sevenhans has introduced himself with some easy to understand reasoning to test Richard Cronin’s easy to read article.
If this article does not get obliterated by an overwhelming mass of new articles we may see some progress and resolution to that which Principia Scientific was set up to do.
Oh, and isn’t Andy Rowland’s article no.4 a well written, researched and referenced article of informative clarity. A gifted keyboard warrior.
Kind regards. Matt
Reply
Moffin
| #
Andy Rowlands is a writer not a keyboard warrior.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
If you go to Jan Sevenhans’ link you will find that he seems to quote Einstein even more frequently than I. Einstein was a very honest scientist whose quotes need to be studied for guidance much more than I have read. Not only honest but also very humble.
And do not forget we are all humans who regularly make mistakes.
Have a good day, Jerry.
Reply
Matt
| #
Hi Jerry. Thank you for leading this horse to water.
This horse does drink the water.
I am humbled by the lessons.
Kind regards. Matt
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Interesting.
Was there any monitoring of average or total ozone over Earth for a long period?
Maybe there was never any depletion, ever.
Only thinning in places.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The only problem CFCs had was that their patent had run out and anybody could make them. Dupont jumped on ozone depletion nonsense so they could sell more of their more expensive replacement products. CFOs are too heavy to reach the upper atmosphere just as CO2 cam’t get there.
The only reason CFCs are found in Antarctica (its not for air conditioning) is because of their stability (don’t decompose from heat) and they don’t freeze. This makes them an ideal fuel for steering thrusters on spy satellites. Since the ideal orbit for a spy satellites over the poles and best place to adjust an orbit is over the South Pole. It is governments who are continuing to put CFCs into the atmosphere over Antarctica.
It is uv light being absorbed by O2 molecules that creates O3. It takes 450 kjoules/mole to split an oxygen molecule into oxygen atoms. Some of these free atoms combine with an O2 molecule to produce an unstable O3 molecule. That O3 molecule will spontaneous decompose into O + O2 even in the absence of uv.With a concentration of 10 ppm in the ozone layer O3 absorbs nothing.
The whole theory of man causing ozone depletion is nonsense. When the Earth formed and there was no free O2 in the atmosphere and it wasn’t until plants evolved that there was enough O2 in the atmosphere to allow uv to create O3. It is a natural process.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
Read Andy’s article. Why does it take so many words to say: We really do not know? I have yet to read anything that convinces me that there is anyone who ‘actually knows’ anything. Except that there are too many people trying to make the disease a political football to kick around.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
geran
| #
Hi Jerry,
I read Andy’s article also. I’m not sure how you could get such a wrong impression. I thought he made some interesting points, backed up with facts.
Of course, I went into it with an open mind…..
Have a great day.
Reply