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.
Wow.
The “human activity is killing the planet” crowd was wrong.
again.
i’m shocked
The chlorine content of CFCs is what was blamed for the Ozone hole. Notice there is a sodium layer in the atmosphere. The sodium layer comes from the disassociation of salt (sodium – chloride) from the oceans – which of course leaves Chlorine. You can easily smell the salt in the water vapor near the ocean. This is a much larger natural source of chlorine than CFCs could ever be.
Isn’t it interesting that the Freon ban occurred just as the patent on Freon expired.
Remember that uv light is required to produce ozone in the upper atmosphere. There are two areas on the earth with reduced uv light for about half the year. Circulation tends to be in the E-W or W-E direction (the bands on Jupiter and Saturn)
It must be noted that long before “anthropogenic climate change” was pushed, their previous scam, basically a trial balloon for methods and means, was the “ozone hole”. The South Polar Vortex, which happens every year to some extent or another, causes a slight decrease in upper-atmospheric ozone, a completely natural phenomenon. The collectivist/statist/authoritarians latched on this as a way to control/destroy a small part of the world’s economy by eliminating the cheapest, safest, and most economical refrigerants mankind ever invented, R-12 and R-22.
The excuse given was that since these were chlorofluorocarbons, they might possibly escape from refrigeration systems and mystically travel to the upper atmosphere where the chlorine would (again, mystically) be de-bound from the other atoms and bind with ozone. This was only ever shown, and poorly, in lab experiments. The result would (according to the complete lack of actual science and evidence) result in the total destruction of all ozone in the upper atmosphere, thus frying everything on Earth with ultraviolet light.
(Of course, it’s only a coincidence that DuPont’s patents on those compounds were expiring, and that part of the whole Montreal Protocol involved heavily subsidizing the construction of their new refrigerant manufacturing plant, but these things happen.)
Anybody remember the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo back in 1991? It directly injected all the way into the stratosphere more chlorine compounds than mankind has manufactured in the history of civilization. It cooled the planet for a couple of years, and (naturally) measurably dropped stratospheric ozone levels (which refrigerants had never been shown to do).
We were told before the refrigerant ban that it would take 50 years before the damage to the ozone layer would be reversed…but the last publicized measurements of ozone levels in the Vortex (2005, if I remember) showed that:
– Ozone levels were the highest ever measured in the “hole”
– The “hole” was the smallest ever measured, and then split into two segments and disappeared before further measurements could be taken.
Just like glueball wormening, the whole thing was scam by the collectivists to attempt to take over the world’s economy “by other means”.
The fact that millions of people have died due to lack of access to medicine and food storage through cheap, efficient refrigeration is just a side effect for these elitist-wannabes.
Just as a by-the-way, the Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987, but the US didn’t start the reductions in use/design with R22 until 1992, and banned its use in automotive A/C in 1995. It was eliminated from HVAC and refrigeration systems in the US in 2010, and as of 2020 it became unlawful to import.
Blackwing1
Pinatubo put a lot of sulfur into the stratosphere. And yes, there were 2 years of well below average summer on the prairies and fursarium head blight ran rampant.
UV light breaks the CFCs into radicles which interfere with O radicles in creating O3. What was not shown was CFCs getting up to the stratosphere before getting degraded by uv light. My phys-chem prof liked my way of doing those calculations so much, he adopted the system.
I thought the ozone hole scam had gone away?
Ozone is oxygen. As long as this planet has oxygen, and UV light from the sun, there will be Ozone. Destroying Ozone is impossible, violates the first law of thermodynamics. It only changes its form… Usually back into oxygen (because ozone is an ozone depleting chemical when the molecules run into each other, or into nitrous oxide which is more abundant, they revert to a low energy form)
Oxygen and nitrogen blocks short wave radiation UV-B and C. It breaks apart these air molecules resulting with ozone and nitrous oxide in the high atmosphere. Monoatomic oxygen and nitrogen in the highest atmosphere that slow and malfunction low orbit satellites. (same reaction gives us our blue sky) These reactionary compounds build to a maximum of around 10 ppm before they’re reacting with each other as fast as they’re being created.
When the sun goes down, compounds continue reacting with each other (until they freeze), causing the sky to turn green as seen from the space station. They self deplete to 3 ppm every night. Just to rebuild the next day.
Does ozone protect us from radiation? It’s larger size allows it to also block the longer wave radiation UV-A which is not harmful or cause sunburn. At 10 ppm, it will block 10 photons out of a million… 999,990 UV photons out of a million will pass right through.
Chlorofluorocarbon is heavier than air and sinks into the soil and into the oceans.
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/cfcs-unintentional-ocean-tracers/
Chlorofluorocarbon is stable to 2000° … The only place with enough energy to break the molecule apart is outside our atmosphere, far above the ozone layer. The free chlorine atom now can do it’s damage… Assuming it doesn’t find a hydrogen atom which will react violently making the chlorine non-reactive with the oxygen.
How would a chlorofluorocarbon molecule heavier than air get outside our atmosphere? Wouldn’t be more likely that free chlorine from drinking water, swimming pools and washing machines, if not the ocean itself, be a better source? (chlorine is one of the most abundant elements on earth, if you could remove the salt from the ocean, it would make a continent the size of Europe)
As blackwing1 mentioned Mt. Pinatubo, heated salt water released free chlorine directly to the upper atmosphere… Equipment was placed aboard the space shuttle which flew over to measure the ozone hole the volcano created. Years later they released the results… They said their instruments were not powerful enough to measure the hole that they knew was there. There was too much smoke and dust that got in the way. The ash protected the earth from UV light by blocking it completely.
So what causes the infamous ozone depletion over Antarctica? Stratospheric clouds. The solar wind and solar flares provide hydrolyzed gases that collect in earths upper atmosphere drawn in by the magnetic field. Normally the gases react with oxygen creating water, this reaction is delayed because of the extreme cold temperatures and held in place by the polar vortex over Antarctica.
In the spring with the first ray of sunlight in September, The gases in the polar stratospheric clouds begin to react and ozone is the most convenient metabolizer to react with.
Once the clouds are gone, Ozone levels return to normal usually by the end of September. The newly created water supplements to the ground creating a new layer of ice that averages about 1 foot thick every year. (The only explanation for 12 inches of water in the second driest climate in the world) The size of the ozone hole is dependent on the activity of the sun.
Apparently critical thinking is a rare occurrence, even among scientist. Obviously there is an agenda that black wing and others have explained.
Don’t forget the role the CFC ban had in Columbia, encouraging the erosion of External Tank SOFI during launch. Holes in the tiles under the orbiter went up by an order of magnitude after the ban, eventually culminating with a briefcase sized chunk releasing during launch of Columbia impacting the leading edge of a wing and poking a hole in it.
This was the second EPA-sponsored accident after the asbestos ban did its part in ensuring the successful field joint seal blow-by during Challenger.
The replacement for asbestos didn’t fare all that well in the cold. Asbestos, OTOH, doesn’t really care about cold at all. Of course you bypass the entire discussion entirely when you choose not to launch the beast after cold soaking it in outside air temperature a full 40 degrees F below what a big solid ever had been launched in before (Titan 34D at Vandy, 57 F, if I remember right). Cheers –
I think asbestos should still have a place in construction—Teslabots can’t get cancer:)
In weather/climate news….
https://stormtrack.org/threads/new-explanation-for-ball-lightning.21190/
Not sure about this one:
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/zCgu51Qskeg
Mark Stenhoff wrote a good book on the subject.
Earth Science news
https://phys.org/news/2025-06-rapid-antarctic-greening.html
https://phys.org/news/2025-07-ocean-atmosphere-equally-responsible-atlantic.html