New data: the ozone hole occurs mostly because of the sunspot cycle and cosmic rays, not CFC pollution
The uncertainty of science: A science paper released yesterday suggests that the ozone hole over Antarctica that scientists have been tracking for almost a half century is caused mostly by the solar cycle and the accompanying fluctuations in cosmic rays hitting the upper atmosphere, not the release of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that used to be used in aerosol spray cans.
The graph to the right, from figure 2 of the paper, illustrates the data. The red line is the ozone hole fluctuations predicted by the paper’s model, labeled “CRE Theory”, based on the increase of cosmic ray radiation during solar minimum. The blue, black, and green lines indicate the actual fluctuations of ozone and temperature in the lower stratosphere where the ozone layer exists. As you can see, the model and actual fluctuations match quite closely. From the paper’s abstract:
We first show from observations that both [lower stratospheric ozone] and temperature display pronounced 11-y cyclic variations over Antarctica and mid-latitudes, while weak (no apparent) cyclic variations over the tropics. These observations are consistent with the prediction by the CRE theory. Second, our no-parameter CRE theoretical calculations give the vertical profile of ozone loss in perfect agreement with observations at the Antarctic Syowa station and reproduce well the time-series variations of both [lower stratospheric ozone] and temperature in the polar, mid-latitude, and tropical regions, including the previously reported large ozone depletion in the lower stratosphere over the tropics.
The results also demonstrate that both [ozone] and temperature are controlled by [cosmic rays] and ozone-depleting substances [such as CFCs] only. Moreover, CRE calculations exhibit complex phenomena in future trends of [ozone] and temperature, which are strongly affected by the future trend of [cosmic ray] fluxes. The latter might even lead to almost no recovery of the ozone hole over Antarctica and no returning to the 1980 level over the tropics by 2100.
Though the data does show a long term decline in the ozone layer that the paper’s author, Qing-Bin Lu of the University of Waterloo in Canada, attributes to the use of CFCs prior to their ban in 1987, the data also shows that the hole itself did not appear because of those chemicals, as scientists and environmentalists have claimed for decades and used to successfully push for the ban. Instead, the hole occurs because of the increased flux of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere when the Sun is less activity.
Having too much certainty is always bad
This data also adds weight to the hypothesis that says the solar cycle has a large impact on the global climate temperature. That theory, not yet confirmed, posits that the increase in cosmic rays during periods of low solar activity causes more cloud cover, which reduces the light reaching the surface and thus lowers the climate’s temperature. Extensive circumstantial data has shown that the climate routinely cools when the Sun’s sunspot cycle is less active, and this hypothesis attempts to explain why.
That the data shows cosmic rays are the cause of the ozone hole tells us that they could certainly do other things to our climate.
This research also illustrates the danger in science of too quickly jumping to conclusions. When the ozone hole was first discovered in the early 1980s, many people (including myself) said it was too soon to attribute it to CFCs. We needed more time to study it, especially because we had no idea at the time if it was a new phenomenon — caused by CFCs — or a regular and normal occurrence that we simply had not had the ability to track previously. We now know it is a regular and normal event, and that CFCs are not connected to it, even though they do appear to have an impact.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon. from any other book seller, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
An anthropogenic source never did make sense to me.
Most of the planet’s industry lies north of the equator, where land masses and most factories are–yet Antarctica gets the hole.
Now there are orographic reasons. The North Pole is ice covered ocean surrounded by land.
The South Pole is a continent surrounded by water–with circular sea currents–and air currents one would think would keep emissions out.
The southern hemisphere is both warmer and colder than the northern hemisphere.
North America widens towards our pole…allowing cold, continental air to build. In summer (now) due to axial tilt–we get more sunlight..even though we are farther from the Sun. Winter is moderated a tad, by us being closer to Sol even though we are leaning back, as it were.
South America is wide near the equator. There the Earth leans towards the Sun when the Sun is closest.
South America thins into a giant peninsula, with maritime air to either side to moderate things.
Antarctica is unfortunate. It leans away from the Sun when the Sun is farthest—and cold continental air is locked in place.
Some thought that was why CFCs had an eroding effect…just enough accumulation and cold to matter.
But I remember ozone thinning near the North Pole following eruptions of Spurr and Redoubt.
I remember talking to a writer who thought Antarctica had no volcanoes.
It does.
One is Mt. Erebus–where the Dante robot got stuck.
That, orographics, the Sun–and maybe some other emissions–it may take all of the above.
This is my shocked face! Imagine Occam’s Razor getting it right again.
I’ve been saying this for decades. I want my Freon back.
Can I recharge my old freezer now?
It works better than anything built in the last 40 years -but it needs new refrigerant.
Chris and M Puckett: Please note that the paper documents quite clearly a slow but systemic decline in the ozone layer across all these fluctuations. It also shows that decline easing in the past few decades.
Both facts suggest the ban on CFCs might still have made sense, though as always the Chicken Little panic mentality of the environmentalists in the 1980s over this subject was thoroughly unnecessary.
The CFC ban makes no sense. There is a chain of chemical reactions which are necessary for the breakdown of ozone by CFCs. Some years ago a German (I think) researcher decided to try to create these in the lab under the conditions in the upper atmosphere. One critical step ran at about 5% of the assumed rate required to hold the story together. This seems to have been buried. The late Jerry Pournelle’s “Chaos Manor” once had a story where one of his correspondents was involved in an effort to measure the levels of the intermediate reactants during the very early years of the Clinton maladministration. Involved Satellites, U-2s, balloons etc. They found the same results as the later German research so of course Al Gore buried it.
As there are solar activity effects on the known solar cycle how do we know that there aren’t longer term cycles that do the same? Actually we have some clues as the Brits ran an expedition to Antarctica in 1954 where the ozone depletion was measured long before CFC’s came into widespread use.
Note also the Chinese never stopped manufacturing bootleg CFCs. Some were bought by people who could turn them in for payment to be safely destroyed. Nice work if you can get it.
I’ll add that the western CFC ban came with considerable cost. Energy efficiency of refrigeration being one, along with the disastrous early 1990’s “green” insulating foam debacle where the foams in refrigerators and cool rooms either kept expanding nor collapsed internally. Also see Space Shuttle external tank.
I agree using CFC’s willy nilly as spray can propellants wasn’t a good idea but refrigeration gases can be recycled. The alternatives are either more expensive or toxic and/or dangerous (ammonia and hydrocarbons). Fire extinguishers where certain compounds have been banned is another place where people can die as a result.
CFCs were the thin end of the wedge inserted by the enviroloons which is why we have the current “net zero” global warming insanity.
Why would a ban on CFC’s in the northern hemisphere work best on the southern pole?
CFC’s were used the most in the north.
The equatorial winds tend to stop north/south intermixing.
I do believe that you can still get r12 in Mexico.
Many R12 unit owners saved the R-12 when they replaced some of their units. They would clean it and store it for their use when needed. It was standard practice when the R-12 ban ent into effect. Actually it was well known that propane was the best refrigerant for performance, but the most difficult to handle and the most dangerous. So, yes, Mexico might have the world’s largest supply of R-12. And it is true that the units made to accommodate R134A and R405 etcher operated in units that were made far cheaper than the old R-12 units. Season A/C professionals lament about the units of today.