Our Ozone layer... What is really causing that hole ?

Hi ATS

I'd like to attract some attention to the lies which are spread about the hole in the Ozone layer and what is causing it. I'm no pro, but I've recently become aware of what I'm about to tell you, and I've done some research on the matter.

What made me realize something ain't right ? Well... make yourself comfortable and I'll tell ya.

An announcement the Ozone layer is smaller then last year. I had to search for an English article, since I've read it in a Dutch one...

Until the 1980s, chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, and other man-made halogen compounds were used in refrigeration, aerosol sprays and numerous other applications throughout the world.

He said he expected the ozone hole to disappear by about 2060.

Ozone hole smaller this year.
And,
Ozone hole smaller this year - scientist

Wonderful news isn't it ?

Then again...

The main cause of the hole or Ozone depletion are CFCs. Now this is where I think someone somwhere isn't telling us the exact truth regarding this subject.

CFCs a.k.a. chlorofluorocarbons is an organic substance that contains, carbon, fluorine and chlorine.
However... the exact properties aren't important to say what I have to say, I thought I should at least mention some for those who wish to further investigate this.
These CFCs have been used as aerosols in spray cans that contain deodorant, hairspray and countless of other products. They are also found in the cooling systems like, refrigerators and air conditioners and are commonly known as Freon.

The Montreal protocol ended the the use of CFCs on a massive scale.In the late seventies the emissions of CFCs were regulated do to the their destructive effects on the Ozone layer, but only after the dramatic seasonal depletion of Ozone ( the Ozone hole ) the response to phase them out came in 1987.

Until the 1980s, chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, and other man-made halogen compounds were used in refrigeration, aerosol sprays and numerous other applications throughout the world.
UV radiation breaks down these chemicals once they are in the stratosphere, releasing chlorine and bromine atoms, which then deplete ozone.

They were vigorously working an a less destructive replacement since the late seventies when the destructive properties of CFCs were first discovered, which they found in HFCs or hydrochlorofluorocarbons.

The difference is that HFCs have a larger probability to dissolve in the lower atmosphere, which they do.
Unfortunately there are still to much that reach the stratosphere and cause the Ozone depletion.

If you've read the article I've posted you've seen that scientists assume the hole will disappear and the Ozone layer will recover in 50 or 60 years...

He said he expected the ozone hole to disappear by about 2060.

The model accurately reproduces the ozone hole area in the Antarctic stratosphere over the past 27 years. Using the model, the researchers predict that the ozone hole will recover in 2068, not in 2050 as currently believed.
The scientists predict the ozone hole will not start shrinking a lot until 2018. By that year, the ozone hole's recovery will make better time.

Scientists Find Antarctic Ozone Hole To Recover Later Than Expected

At least they have some solid arguments... The next one is a bit more optimistic....

The ozone layer is no longer disappearing and could be back to full strength by the middle of this century, UN scientists have confirmed.
The phasing out of nearly 100 substances once used in products like refrigerators and aerosols has stopped the ozone layer being depleted further, although it is not yet increasing, according to a new United Nations report released last week.

Ozone layer stable, on the way to recovery

My problem is this :

They have only reached faze out goals as little as 10 to 15 years ( tops ) ago.

It turns out that one of CFCs' most attractive features—their low reactivity— is key to their most destructive effects. CFCs' lack of reactivity gives them a lifespan that can exceed 100 years, giving them time to diffuse into the upper stratosphere.

HFCs are still used abundantly although regulated.

This means that it will take at least until 2094 for the last CFCs to end their lifespans. That belonged with the last batch, while there still are HFCs emitted...

From my uneducated point of view it is impossible for the Ozone hole to get smaller as soon as 2060 because we were still emitting without even regulated boundaries in 1960... I could be wrong though. It just doesn't make sense for the hole to be shrinking at this point let alone being closed up anywhere before the year 2100.

I'd like to hear your thoughts about my stance with the current explanations and predictions regarding this subject ?

Part two :


CFCs etc... are also super greenhouse gases.

The regulations on carbon emissions are not as important as they make you belief. The alternative is to cut off other alternative sources of global warming ( nearly 50 % ), which can have a huge effect and are easier to actually succeed within a shorter time period.

Many scientists and environmentalists say reducing the “forgotten 50 percent” of pollutants will be faster, easier and substantially cheaper than cutting carbon dioxide, and could buy the world time in its climate clock race.

HFCs: Case Study in Interconnections Of Ozone Depletion and Climate Change


I hope I've succeeded in presenting my problem to you. If not ? Just say so or ask for an explanation.

Kind regards

~ Sinter

When you put CFC's into the atmosphere, the amount doesn't remain constant for 100 years after which they immediately disappear. Instead I presume they are removed from the atmosphere constantly. Sort of like an exponential decay graph.

reply to post by C0bzz


Ok

I understand what you are saying. However this explanation didn't turn up during my research.

I would assume it should if your explanation is correct ?

CFCs' lack of reactivity gives them a lifespan that can exceed 100 years, giving them time to diffuse into the upper stratosphere. Once in the stratosphere, the sun's ultraviolet radiation is strong enough to cause the homolytic cleavage of the C-Cl bond.

from wiki

page 16
www.unep.org...
EESC = equivalent effective stratospheric chlorine

The concentration is going down, hence it is being removed. The wiki article said of it 'can' exist after 100 years, which is true because some of it will. But that doesn't imply that all of it will still be there, some of it will also have been removed.

I needed to add this article from Professor Qing-Bin Lu.

New Univeristy of Waterloo study finds CFCs, not CO2, to be the cause of recent global warming.

Professor Lu also explains that the climate change crisis is over. Thanks to an international environmental treaty, the planet is no longer in peril. We have, in fact, begun a long cooling period that will bring Earth’s temperatures back to normal.

“I didn’t see any CO2 effect on temperature or ozone depletion over the South Pole from 1956 to 2008,” explained Dr. Lu, surprised at how totally different the real-world measurements were from those that the climate model predicted. The real-world measurements showed CO2 to be largely irrelevant – “the global warming on Earth’s surface between 1950 and 2000 is pretty much due to CFCs,” he concluded. “The models say that CO2 is a major greenhouse gas but the facts show otherwise.

How about that ?

reply to post by C0bzz


Thanks

Now for the next part.

The claim that man made climate change was caused only by CFCs
I've added a link two posts from this one.Make that one

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by C0bzz

 

Thanks

Now for the next part.

The claim that man made climate change was caused only by CFCs

Well right off the bat I see a serious hole (pun intended - zing!) in professor Lu's theory:

(Source)

"Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases, has decreased around 2000," Lu said. "Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate."

In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b1e718bbaf94.gif[/atsimg]

if you presumed that AGW was about climate and environment, your approach would be worthwhile,. but then we're living in a world motivated by other factors.....


i suggest you took into account that Mt. Erebus seems to emit halogens, which can only destroy ozone. volcanic plumes tend to rise, too and while i haven't yet found anything tangible on halogen emissions on the Northern hemisphere, it'd be worthwhile to investigate, imho.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

The discharge rates of halogens in aerosols and gases emitted from Mount Erebus between December 1986 and January 1991 were estimated by combining element-to-sulfur ratios on filter samples with SO2 output measured by COSPEC. The halogen and sulfur content of the gas vary in a quasi-cyclical pattern possibly because of a heterogeneous distribution of volatiles in the Erebus magmatic system. The emission rates of HF and HCl have increased twofold since 1986 reaching 6 and 13.3 Gg/yr, respectively, in 1991, making Erebus an important contributor of halogens to the Antarctic atmosphere.

two random observations:

these halogens won't last long, they aren't nearly as inert as CFCs are, therefore a drop in emissions would yield a more immediate improvement.

Eyjafjallajokull (Iceland) emitted fluorine this year or so i've heard, so i'd expect ozone depletion in the North, for a while at least.

reply to post by Long Lance


It appears another Icelandic volcano erupted today. I saw a thread pop up with the info.

reply to post by mc_squared


The theory of the professor could be partially based on wrong data.The Climate gate scandal where they altered measurements are causing a delay until all of the data is retrieved.

Could it be that your chart is one that includes the altered data ?

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


Sinter my friend - there was no altered data...

CRU climate scientists 'did not withhold data'
Conservative media hype misleading report suggesting CRU destroyed raw climate data
‘Climategate’ inquiry shows scientist didn’t falsify data

or climategate "scandal" for that matter...

Scientists cleared of malpractice in UEA's hacked emails inquiry
Third Inquiry Clears 'Climategate' Scientists of Serious Wrongdoing
Final ‘forensic’ UK report on emails vindicates climate science and research underlying the Hockey Stick

It was ALL propaganda:

"Climategate" exposed: Conservative media distort stolen emails in latest attack on global warming consensus
Media Matters: The greatest science "scandal" "in the history of man" predictably falls apart
The Real Hoax Was Climategate
Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done

Context:

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?
The CRU E-mails: What is Really There?
How much context is in the Climategate emails?

In the meantime, if you still don't want to trust the GISS data, then have a look here. That is the UAH satellite data from well known global warming skeptic Roy Spencer. Does that look like it's been cooling for the last decade?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f94fc4f6f09f.gif[/atsimg]

reply to post by mc_squared


No kidding

I've never heard or read it was a hoax.

Why would anyone be so stupid ? I mean I can understand why they would create a climate warming hoax, but a hoax that their isn't really puts us in a dangerous position.

I'm actually feeling flabbergasted right now.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


Well - welcome to the real global warming conspiracy

Everybody is so focused on who is making the most money if global warming is a hoax - they never bother asking who is losing the most money if global warming is a reality.

The answer to this is both simple and obvious and yet deeper and more complicated than most conspiracy theorists seem to realize.

The simple and obvious answer is fossil fuel industries - Coal and Oil.

Proper action and legislation against global warming is designed to ween our society off these things entirely, so obviously they stand to lose basically everything in the long run. Thus they have invested millions of dollars in funding a very elaborate disinformation campaign that has done everything they can to delay this process as long as possible. This runs the gamut from infiltrating politics to spreading internet propaganda to funding disingenuous "skeptic" scientists all the while apparently hacking the legitimate ones' emails.

I mean consider this - the leaked emails originated on a server in Tomsk, Russia. How convenient is it that Tomsk has recently seen it's fledgling economy revived by an oil boom?
Once sidelined, Siberia's Tomsk enjoys oil boom

I could go on and on but since you're one of the few members around here willing to do their own research - I'll leave you with two reports that really highlight the extent to which these crooks go to cast doubt on otherwise credible science:

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science
Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine

Hopefully you can see for yourself - these people are sick. They care only about profit, not the truth or health and well-being of our planet. And they have gone to great means to protect their priorities and their agenda above all else.


But I also said there is a deeper and more complicated answer - this involves not just obvious connections to big oil companies, but more subversive elements of our entire economic culture.

Pretty much the entire world runs on this principle of "more, more, more!". Meanwhile global warming requires us to quite literally change our attitudes and our mindsets to a principle of balance and sustainability and so essentially "less, less, less". This of course doesn't sit well with all the people and corporations and PTB who are exploiting our mindless tendencies towards overconsumption to make themselves very rich.

I covered this before in a thread I made right after the climategate "scandal" broke:
You have all gotten in bed with the enemy.

reply to post by mc_squared


you are right in that the same strong interests are playing both sides, so they can just lean back and watch the show, but there's still the question of doing the right thing while avoiding mistakes, isn't there?


let's see what has been implemented in response to AGW and not money is just a tool to make these things happen, so it's just part of the story. it's been 'alternative energy', strangely focused on transportation (where it's hardest to implement) and to a lesser degree, electricity, which comes right after.

what about reducing fertilizer use? heating or air conditioning? cure crickets, but there ARE existing proven improvements available. maybe people should take into account the cost of building and operating tall buildings vs. that of commute. these things can be analyzed, y'know?

no holistic view at all and isolated, detrimental 'counter'-measures that are leading us into hell and i'm not using the term lightly. starvation through biofuels, can it get any worse? not only is it murder, it will worsen erosion and soil depletion and pave the way for genetically engineered varieties that have so far fallen short many, many times, but that doesn't matter in a subsidized, quality-free market, does it? have people completely forgotten the rainforest, which used to make so many headlines?


likewise, the public fixation on windmills won't pay the world's energy bills, their nature alone makes them a niche application and no-one is talking shop about the ramifications, which are a variation of lights out and no gas. the fantasy land mindset currently in place should ask for available options or it'll be a rude awakening.

a note on money, lots of it are going to waste that should have been used constructively, the US' wars, the West's senseless obsession with security-by-obscurity-and-theater, EU& US 'green energy' biz, wasting billions on solar panels in a cloudy country at 50+ deg latitude and so on.

all of these resources have in fact been forcibly extracted for nothing or very little in return. the cause? AWG theories. does anybody protest? no, they fully endorse all of it, despite the damage. i mean in this thread, in the OP is mentioned that half of the assumed greenhouse effect is attributed to gases OTHER than carbon dioxide, yet, do we see any effort to reduce them? comparable to CO2? apparently not, so what's the real motivation at play. search you soul, people.


PS: how come it's become swell to not only NOT listen to dissent, but immediately start smearing differing opinions?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

this guy certainly knows his stuff, yet saying the wrong thing will get you from expert to senile idiot in a microsecond. selective perception gets old, doesn't it?

reply to post by Long Lance


Long Lance I think you're getting a little too swept up in the politics surrounding global warming and because of that not seeing it entirely for what it is. Just because there are people exploiting it (and there are) doesn't make the problem itself any less real.

If you move past the politics I think you'd see that most of the true proponents of AGW - i.e. the scientists and the environmentalists, NOT the politicians, have the same concerns as you. Issues like deforestation are a HUGE part of the overall dialogue, most of us climate hawks don't believe in biofuels, (at least not horribly inefficient ones like ethanol), and of course we want solutions that maximize their full potential, not just piss into the wind.

But the answer to these issues certainly doesn't lie in renouncing the problem itself.

Because our BIGGEST concern by far is public apathy. We understand that our world leaders are generally a bunch of screw ups and big business shills - which is exactly why we need to all take stronger initiatives ourselves. In doing so, it presents the platform for our own collective empowerment, as well as the opportunity for some real leadership to arise. That is if everyone would actually start listening to the right people, instead of just being conditioned to ignore them altogether.


PS Speaking of ignoring - I'm one of the ones who called Hal Lewis a senile hack, but I don't just throw accusations like that around with nothing to back them up, I prove them:
Why you should indeed ignore anything Hal Lewis says