Ozone hole/ depletion debunked?

**Also Known As** · October 2nd, 2005, 01:03 PM

"Since they debunked the ozone hole."

I've been hearing this thrown out online and in person for the past couple of years, but I recently Googled it, and wasn't able to find any information on recent developments. My first reaction is that it is simply a right wing talking point. But I'm not going to just dismiss it as such on the chance that there have been developments that I'm unaware of that have cast doubt on the link between CFCs and the destruction of the Earth's ozone layer, or even new information casting doubt on the loss of the ozone layer at all.

At a training class for appliance repair, the instructor was stating quite confidently the the "ozone hole" (which I realize was caused by overall thinning) has been debunked, and then launched into a conspiracy theory about how it was all about money since Dow's patent on R12 was about to run out in the early 1990s. Since this would entail a global conspiracy, it is laughable. But I was hesitant to challenge the idea that ozone depletion has been debunked, since I have no been able to find any recent information on the state of the ozone layer, or projections of its further depletion or recovery.

Have any of you read anything recently? I know it has been overshadowed by global warming theories, and by the fact that CFCs are being phased out, and there is probably little more we can do. But I find the smug assertion that the disuse of CFCs was unnecessary, and just another example of hysterical liberal environmental BS annoying. I'd like to be able to confidently refute it.

Related Discussions:

**SkinWalker** · October 2nd, 2005, 07:47 PM

This is a popular myth of the "Junk Science" crowd.

The myth often goes like this: "There is absolutely nothing wrong with Freon. The entire Freon ban is based on junk science.”

Which, of course, is typical pseudoscientific bias in favor of corporate profiteering.

The problem with chlorofluorocarbons is simple chemistry that even I can grasp (Molina and Rowland, 1974). Perhaps you should actually obtain and education that includes it, Brutus. CFCs are and have been detected at stratospheric heights in the atmosphere.

The reaction is very basic: Cl + O3 --> O2 + ClO

One chlorine molecule is liberated from the energy of UV striking the the CFC. The single chlorine molecule then reacts with a single atom of oxygen thus: O + ClO --> Cl + O2

The result is a cycle of depletion of ozone since the single atoms of oxygen created by the reaction of UV + O2 --> O + O are used in making the chlorine molecule instead of the ozone molecules in the reaction 2O + 2O2 --> 2O3

A report (WMO, 2002) of 250 scientists finds that restraints on production of ozone-destroying chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons had the desired effect: the concentration of the prime offender, chlorine, reached a peak, ozone began to increase in the stratosphere, and the "hole" began to shrink.

The real "junk" science here is in the form of the pseudoscientific means that corporations like Dupont will use monetary influence to create doubt among those less inclined to understand real science and how it works. People are duped into accepting their claims, which, amazingly enough, seem only to sprout up in non-peer reviewed literature.

The peer reviewed literature is clear. CFCs are deleterious to the environment, specifically the ozone concentrations in the stratosphere that are essential in filtering UV radiation.

For each 1% drop in ozone levels, about 1% more UV-B reaches the Earth's lower atmosphere (WMO, 2002). Increases in UV-B of 6-14% have been measured at many mid and high-latitude sites over the past 20 years (WMO, 2002, McKenzie, 1999). At some sites about half of this increase can be attributed to ozone loss.

I really detest the "junk science" crowd. You can find them by googling "junk science" or picking Steven Milloy's rag, Junk Science Judo. I call it a rag because Milloy is a journalist that misses the mark in looking for "junk" science. There's plenty out there, but his criticisms suffer from agenda-bias and and under-educated perspective of statistics. Milloy has some legitimate information in the book, it's just poorly referenced, under-explained, and obviously targeted with an agenda. There was plenty of other junk/bad science that he completely overlooked, probably because it did not suit the "Fox News" style journalism he's accustomed to.

The twits at junkscience.com likewise have an agenda and make liberal practice of quote-mining in their biased attempts to expose the "junk" in science.

Sadly, people like your instructor buy into their nonsense because it fullfills their need or desire to dismiss the truth.

References:

McKenzie, R., B. Connor, G. Bodeker, "Increased Summertime UV Radiation in New Zealand in Response to Ozone Loss", Science, 285, 1709-1711, 1999.

Molina, M.J., and F.S. Rowland, "Stratospheric Sink for Chlorofluoromethanes: Chlorine Atom-Catalyzed Destruction of Ozone", Nature 249, 810-812, 1974.

WMO/UNEP, "Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2002 Executive Summary", World Meteorological Organization Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project, available at www.unep.ch/ozone/pdf/execsumm-sap2002.pdf

**Charlie72** · May 5th, 2010, 06:50 AM

Hi Skin Walker.

To start off, I'm no scientist expert. I write to you with respect, considering my point of view in reacting to what people say about the Ozone layer.
The Ozone started to talk around the late 70’s, I remember it so well. They even had commercials about it, products which they could sell you a product which was hair-spray, be careful with those CFCs now. And today we still see they don’t give a damn, unleaded gasoline, it’s good for the environment, what total nonsense. Your facts are so true; the corporate have destroyed our beloved planet. They have burnt the ozone and they’ve swiped out the earth’s blood (oil) a foundation like sucking yours or my blood. Total vampires!

Conspiracy theorists think they're always right. Sometimes they do mistakes, like all human beings do; they have an error of common sense. But for 99.9% are sometimes right. 2012 could be our destruction if the Mayans predicted it occurring nearly 6480 years ago. Their calendar isn’t far from ours. Our European calendar is based on the Roman calendar which is derived from the Americas. It shows that a secret roman general in 300b.c could have founded the new world long before the Spaniards got there.

My point Skin is the ozone layer and earth is suffering with the orbiting of the sun in a near equinox galactic alignment. The sun is getting larger by the minute. It’s true, go to NASA and find out. The solar flares are contributing massive UV’s to the earth’s atmosphere, it even passes thru us, and we don’t even know. Solar flares are contributing to the earth’s little core, which is devolved back to the sun (Communicate=). Maybe a force flare reaction, who knows if we’re going towards the sun, are we getting nearer? IS IT BECAUSE WE’RE HAVING A GLOBAL WARMING doesn’t mean the earth is going to die or anything like that. Tell me Skin, is it not that the ozone has NO problems what so ever and is regenerating itself, forming because of the unused of human capacity and thus of the sun’s reaction???

People are saying that the world is ending is true nonsense, which I don't believe, but doesn’t exist the fact the planets are orbiting the sun are in a form of a galactical alignment , which does mean, something should or could happen not in 2012, 2010, 2011 etc, etc. What it means is it can happen tomorrow maybe. I also believe it’s time that Mother Nature should fix and kick all of us out. We don’t deserve to live in this planet!

**John Galt** · May 5th, 2010, 07:51 AM

Welcome to the forum Charlie.