The graph [above] shows the measured total ozone above the Halley Bay station in Antarctica. Each point represents the average total ozone for the month of October. Note the sudden change in the curve after about 1975. By 1994, the total ozone in October was less than half its value during the 1970s, 20 years previous. This dramatic fall in ozone was caused by the use of man-made chemicals known as 'halogens' which include the well-known CFCs commonly used in fridges and so on. These CFCs had made their way into the upper atmosphere where the much stronger UV radiation from the Sun had broken them down into their component molecules, releasing the potentially damaging chlorine (and bromine) atoms, which, given the right conditions, could destroy ozone.
Cambridge University, Centre for Atmospheric Science

bump

Volcanoes Belch Chlorine -- Regardless of Opposition

By Rogelio A. Maduro (co-author of the book: "The Holes in the Ozone Hole Scare: The Scientific Evidence that the Sky is Not Falling")

Over recent months, the promoters of the ozone depletion fraud have mounted a new counteroffensive against the leading scientists and individuals who have debunked the ozone depletion theory. These attacks have singled out Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, and, in particular, the book, The Holes in the Ozone Scare: The Scientific Evidence that the Sky is not Falling.(1)

The popular press as well as the scientific press have featured variations of the same formulations trying to refute the evidence that ozone depletion is not a grave problem, including articles in Chemical & Engineering News, (2) May 24, 1993 and Science magazine,(3) June 11. 1993.

Most interesting in these articles and letters to the editor in various scientific and trade journals is that the promoters of the ozone scare have ignored more than 30 arguments that demonstrate that the theory is a fraud. (4) Instead, they have chosen to defend their claims on one issue alone, a sort of ozone Maginot line: What is the major source of chlorine in the stratosphere, Mother Nature or chlorofluorocarbons?

Professor F. Sherwood Rowland, inventor of the ozone-depletion theory, and his school maintain that chlorine from the oceans and volcanoes does not reach the stratosphere.(5) In their explanations of this belief, however, Rowland and others are being less than honest.

First, we should look at the numbers. According to Rowland's theory, some 7,500 tons of chlorine is released every year in the stratosphere as a result of the breakdown of CFCs by intense ultraviolet radiation. Rowland and his followers, however, do not mention that their theoretical reaction has never been observed to occur in the stratosphere, nor has it ever been carried out in a laboratory. In other words, the actual contribution of chlorine to the stratosphere from CFCs may be zero.

Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, let's assume that CFCs do contribute 7,500 tons of chlorine to the stratosphere annually. How does this compare with natural sources? Ocean biota inject 5 million tons of chlorine into the atmosphere annually; biomass burning, 8.4 million tons; volcanoes, 36 million tons; and evaporation of seawater, 600 million tons – for a total of almost 650 million tons per year. The amount of chlorine injected into the atmosphere from natural sources is hundreds of thousands of times greater than the amount of chlorine allegedly released by the breakdown of CFCs in the stratosphere!

However, Rowland et al. claim that almost none of this natural chlorine reaches the stratosphere be-cause it is "rained out." This is a preposterous claim. As readers can attest, it doesn't rain all the time in all places, and, as a matter of fact, there are many places on Earth where it barely rains at all. How is the chlorine washed out of the atmosphere in these regions?

Furthermore, Rowland deliberately ignores all the transport mechanisms that bring chlorine and other chemicals to the stratosphere. Hurricanes, typhoons, thunderstorms, and the jet stream all inject enormous amounts of water vapor into the stratosphere. Chlorine and sea salt are dissolved in this water vapor. This is the reason that hurricane-monitoring planes, which fly above the hurricanes, are encrusted with salt and must be hosed down and cleaned as soon as they land.

And as Polish scientist Zbigniew Jaworowski showed definitively, based on studies of the radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident, chlorine and other heavy elements do reach the stratosphere.(6)

What About Volcanoes?

On the issue of volcanoes, Rowland and Turco claim that the enormous amounts of chlorine erupting from volcanoes is also "rained out" before it reaches the stratosphere. (7) The claims are not based on any scientific observations, but on a simplistic one-dimensional mathematical model. The model predicts that ejected water vapor condenses into raindrops that dissolve the hydrogen chloride (HCI) and then proceed to fall.

Volcanologists, however, point to the absurdity of these claims. How does the rain manage to fall? Rain that accompanies some eruptions is the result of water vapor being advected into the area because of the heat of the eruption; it does not come from the volcano itself. In violent volcanic eruptions, such as El Chichón and Mt. Pinatubo, almost all of the volcanic debris, including water vapor, penetrates the stratosphere.

Rowland and Turco cite a study by Mankin, Coffey, and Goldman to support their conclusions. (8) This study is flawed. It measured concentrations of HCI in the Caribbean Sea, three weeks after the Mt. Pinatubo eruption took place (in the Philippines, on the other side of the world). Because HCI is con-verted into other chlorine compounds in the volcanic cloud and in the stratosphere, one would not look only for HCI as the dominant chlorine species.

As a matter of fact, Rowland's associate, Dr. Susan Solomon, predicts that sulfur in the volcanic clouds serves as a site for heterogeneous chemical reactions that convert HCI to chlorine monoxide (CIO) and chlorine dioxide (CIO2). (9) This HCI, Solomon claims, comes from CFCs. But, what about the HCI from the volcano? Solomon assumes it doesn't exist.

What a fraud! Mankin and Coffey should have measured CIO, not HCI. No wonder they didn't find chlorine from the volcano; they were not looking for the right chlorine species.

The ozone depletion theorists allege that Mt. Erebus, an active volcano in Antarctica, does not now spew out as much chlorine as stated in The Holes in the Ozone Scare and that its emissions do not reach the stratosphere. This ignores two basic facts pointed out by the French volcanologist Haroun Tazieff: In Antarctica the stratosphere is very low (5,000 meters) and Mt. Erebus reaches a very high altitude (4,000 meters) so that its volcanic emissions indeed reach the stratosphere. (10) In sum, the claims that chlorine from natural sources does not enter the stratosphere are lacking in scientific foundation and can be classified only as a religious belief.

Chemistry Challenged

As for the so-called Antarctic ozone hole, the articles attempting to debunk The Holes in the Ozone Scare rely very heavily on the chemistry presented by Sherwood Rowland, Mario Molina, and Susan Solomon. These articles, however, fail to mention several scientific papers that raise serious questions regarding this chemistry. (11) The papers point out that the alleged chemical reactions presented by Molina, et al. do not follow a least-energy pathway. In other words, Rowland, Molina, and Solomon have deliberately chosen to ignore reaction pathways of least energy – which are the most common in nature – that do not lead to ozone depletion!

One article by NASA researcher Igor Eberstein at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, pu-blished in the May 1990 issue or Ceophysical Research Letters, has yet even to be challenged by the proponents of ozone depletion. In addition, as noted by S. Fred Singer, the ozone depletion theorists conveniently omit mention of research articles on the subject that do not support the intended hypothesis. (12)

Global Ozone Is Not Decreasing

Another fundamental problem with the chemistry is the tact that no decrease in ozone column depth has been detected near the Equator, the location at which the abundance of ozone is most influenced by chemistry. (At the higher latitudes, transport mechanisms and meteorology play a more important role in determining ozone column depth). Therefore, the Equator should be the first place where ozone depletion could be detected if the ozone layer were under chemical attack. (13)

Another point hammered at by Rowland and others is that the current Antarctic ozone hole is new and therefore related only to CFC use. Rowland's article and others repeat Rowland's claim that the ozone hole was not discovered by British scientist Gordon Dobson, who pioneered work on ozone. As any reader can ascertain from reading Dobson's original writings, in fact, Dobson's description of the Antarctic phenomenon of springtime thinning of ozone fits precisely with what is being observed today. (14)

The main difference between Dobson's account and today's accounts is that Dobson's measurements were taken at a single station. Therefore, lacking the encompassing view of satellites, Dobson could not see the areas of lowest ozone: concentrations, nor the scope of ozone thinning across Antarc-tica.

It is alleged that Dobson's published measurements are not as low as those being recorded since 1979, when satellite measurements began. "Published" is the key word here. In recent interviews, Dr. Marcel Nicolet, one of Dobson's key collaborators, stated emphatically that Dobson disregarded all readings below 250 dobson units because nobody would believe them! (15) Rowland was informed of this and was even given a copy of the Belgian film, but he has not changed his comments on the matter.

Other scientists have noted that the same type of observations continued in the 1960s and Dobson and his collaborators were not the only ones to observe the seasonal thinning of the ozone layer in Antarctica. In fact, the lowest levels of ozone ever measured in Antarctica were recorded in l958 at the French observatory at Durnont d'Urville (110 dobson units). (16) It is nothing short of astonishing that Dobson's original records were not reexamined before any of the Antarctic ozone hole doomsday papers were published. (17)

Finally – and this must be said to put in perspective any article concerning ozone depletion – the worst-case scenario of the ozone depletion theorists is that we will have a 10 percent or so depletion of the ozone layer within the next 50 years. In terms of the alleged increase in ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth, this 10 percent depletion translates into the UV equivalent of moving 100 to 200 miles south toward the Equator. In other words, from San Francisco to Los Angeles, or from Washing-ton, D.C., to Richmond, Va., or from New York City to Philadelphia. When we put this to the inventor of the ozone depletion theory, Sherwood Rowland, he acknowledged that this was not something that he would worry about.

So why are we banning a benign refrigerant at a cost of trillions of dollars to the world economy and great human suffering? Who benefits?

Article originally published in 21st Science & Technology magazine, Fall 1993.

FAEC´s commentary by Eduardo Ferreyra: F.S. Sherwood Rowland was "awarded" the Noble Prize in 1995, along with Mario Molina and Paul J. Crutzen, for their work related to this issue. The prize was awarded not on the basis of scientific merit, however, but as a political statement of support for the promoters of the ozone depletion scare: "The three researchers have contributed to our salva-tion from a global environmental problem that could have catastrophic consequences", states the Nobel citation. In other words, it is not science, but the political agenda that matters.

This Nobel motive is not at all hidden, Henning Rhodes, a member of the Swedish Academy of Scien-ces, told the Associated Press concerning this award that "the timing is good in view of the Vienna meeting" (of the Montreal Protocol signatories). "I personally hope that the Noble Prize will put some pressure on the participants".

Rhode made clear that one of the principal reasons for awarding this prize was to stifle the opposition to the ozone depletion fraud in the scientific community. "The Nobel Prize will put a rest to this debate on whether the ozone hole really is a result of CFCs". Rhode is a close personal friend and collaborator of Paul J. Crutzen, and has been preparing the way for the Nobel award for the two pre-vious years, appearing on Swedish national radio to speak against the book "The Holes in the Ozone Scare", and against scientists who have publicly opposed the ozone catastrophe scenario.

As Haroum Tazieff, one of France´s best known scientists, said about his: "The aim of this Nobel Prize in chemistry is to intimidate honest scientists who have tried to resist the catastrophism and the lies about the ozone layer".

Notes

Rogelio A. Maduro and Ralf Schauerhammer, 1992. The Holes in the Ozone Scare: The Scientific Evidence That the Sky Isn't Falling (Washington, D.C.: 21st Century Science Associates).

Pamela S. Zurer, 1993. "Ozone Depletion's Recurring Surprises Challenge Atmospheric Scientists,' Chemical 8 Engineering News, May 24, pp. 8-18.

Gary Taubes, 1993. "The Ozone Backlash, Science, June 11, pp. 1580-1583.

Many of these arguments are presented concisely in Hugh S. E}lsaesser's article "Back to the Drawing Board: Is Stratospheric Ozone Really under Chemical Attack," 21st Century Science 8 Technology (Winter 1992), pp. 23- 27.

See, for example, F. Sherwood Rowland, 1993. "President's Lecture, Science, June 11, pp. 1571-1576.

Zbigniew Jaworowski, 1993. "Fallout Studies Show that Marine Chtorine Reaches Stratosphere," 21st Century Science 8 Technology (Spring 1993), pp. 6-7.

A.Tabazadeh and R.P. Turco, 1993, "Stratospheric Chlorine Injection by Volcanic Eruptions: HCI Scavenging and Implications for Ozone," Science, Vol. 260 (May 21), pp. 1082- 1085.

W.G. Mankin, M.T. Coffey, and A. Gotdman, 1992. "Airborne Observations of SO2, HCI, and O3 in the Stratospheric Plume of the Pinatubo Volcano in July 1991," Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Jan. 24), pp. 179-182.

S. Solomon et al., 1993. "Increased Chlorine Dioxide Over Antarctica Caused by Volcanic Aerosols from Mount Pinatubo," Nature (May 20), pp. 245-248.

Haroun Tazieff, 1992. Interview aired on Belgian National TV documentary, "Fair Skin, Stay In", Sept. 18.

For example, unmentioned are Igor J. Eberstein, 1990, "Photodissociation of CI2O2 in the Spring Antarctic Lower Stratosphere," Geophysical Research l.etters, Vol. 17, No. 6 (May 1990), pp. 721-724; Timothy K. Minton, Christine M. Netson, Teresa A. Moore, and Mitchio Okumura, 1992,"Direct Observation of CIO from Chlorine Nitrate Photolysis", Science, Vol. 258 (Nov. 20), pp. 1342-1345.

S. Fred Singer, 1993. "Ozone Depletion Theory," (Letters), Science, Aug. 27, pp. 1101-1102; also, unpublished communications.

Hugh Ellsaesser, 1993. Letter of comment to the Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket No. A-92-13 (April 22, 1993).

Gordon M.B. Dobson, 1968. "Forty Years' Research on Atmospheric Ozone at Oxford University: A History," Applied Optics, Vol. 7, No. 3 pp. 387-405.

Marcel Nicolet, 1992. Interview aired on Belgian National TV documentary, "Fair Skin, Stay In," Sept. 18.

P. Rigaud and B. Leroy, 1990. "Presumptive Evidence for a Low Value of the Total Ozone Content Above Antarctica in September, 1958." Annales Geophysicae, Vol. 8, No. 11, pp. 791-794.

Source

Thanks for pposting that informative article, first published in Lyndon LaRouche's magazine, '21st Century Science and Technology.' Fall 1993 Vol. 6, No. 3

It's interesting to see what qualifies as a respectable scientific journal around here.

As for one of the frequently made contentions, that CFC's are heavier than air and thus are not likely to ascend to the stratosphere, it is preposterous and unproven. On the contrary, gases, including CFCs, have been proven to mix throughout the troposphere and stratosphere

1.3) How does the composition of the atmosphere change with altitude? (Or, how can CFC's get up to the stratosphere when they are heavier than air?)
In the earth's troposphere and stratosphere, most _stable_ chemical species are "well-mixed" - their mixing ratios are independent of altitude. If a species' mixing ratio changes with altitude, some kind of physical or chemical transformation is taking place. That last statement may seem surprising - one might expect the heavier molecules to dominate at lower altitudes. The mixing ratio of Krypton (mass 84), then, would decrease with altitude, while that of Helium (mass 4) would increase. In reality, however, molecules do not segregate by weight in the troposphere or stratosphere. The relative proportions of Helium, Nitrogen, and Krypton are unchanged up to about 100 km.
Why is this? Vertical transport in the troposphere takes place by convection and turbulent mixing. In the stratosphere and in the mesosphere, it takes place by "eddy diffusion" - the gradual mechanical mixing of gas by motions on small scales. These mechanisms do not distinguish molecular masses. Only at much higher altitudes do mean free paths become so large that _molecular_ diffusion dominates and gravity is able to separate the different species, bringing hydrogen and helium atoms to the top. The lower and middle atmosphere are thus said to be "well mixed." [Chamberlain and Hunten] [Wayne] [Wallace and Hobbs]
Experimental measurements of the fluorocarbon CF4 demonstrate this homogeneous mixing. CF4 has an extremely long lifetime in the stratosphere - probably many thousands of years. The mixing ratio of CF4 in the stratosphere was found to be 0.056-0.060 ppbv from 10-50 km, with no overall trend. [Zander et al. 1992]
An important trace gas that is *not* well-mixed is water vapor. The lower troposphere contains a great deal of water - as much as 30,000 ppmv in humid tropical latitudes. High in the troposphere, however, the water condenses and falls to the earth as rain or snow, so that the stratosphere is extremely dry, typical mixing ratios being about 5 ppmv. Indeed, the transport of water vapor from troposphere to stratosphere is even less efficient than this would suggest, since much of the small amount of water in the stratosphere is actually produced _in situ_ by the oxidation of stratospheric methane. [SAGE II]
"Ozone Depletion FAQ Part I: Introduction to the Ozone Layer"

Thanks for pposting that informative article, first published in Lyndon LaRouche's magazine, '21st Century Science and Technology.' Fall 1993 Vol. 6, No. 3 It's interesting to see what qualifies as a respectable scientific journal around here.

Thanks.

Your slurs and ad-homien attacks on the authors of the data you cannot refute and against FReepers in general is quite telling.

Your slurs and ad-homien attacks on the authors of the data you cannot refute

You consider exposing a connection to Lyndon LaRouche to be a slur? Good, at least we can agree on that.

Refuting the author isn't hard. Solid science has disproven his major assertions. Note the last paragraph of this piece deals with Maduro's volcano theory.

As for slurring Free Rpublic members generallly, I think most people have more sense than to believe LaRouche's theories.

4.4) Volcanoes put more chlorine into the stratosphere than CFC's.


Short Reply: False. Volcanoes account for at most a few percent 
of the chlorine in the stratosphere.

Long reply:  This is one of the most persistent myths in this
area. As is so often the case, there is a seed of truth at the
root of the myth.  Volcanic gases are rich in Hydrogen Chloride, HCl. 
As we have discussed, this gas is very soluble in water and is 
removed from the troposphere on a time scale of 1-7 days, so we can
dismiss quietly simmering volcanoes as a stratospheric source, just 
as we can neglect sea salt and other natural sources of HCl. (In fact
tropospheric HCl from volcanoes is neglible compared to HCl from
sea salt.) However, we cannot use this argument to dismiss MAJOR
volcanic eruptions, which can in principle inject HCl directly into
the middle stratosphere.

What is a "major" eruption?  There is a sort of "Richter scale" for
volcanic eruptions, the so-called "Volcanic explosivity index" or
VEI.  Like the Richter scale it is logarithmic; an eruption with a
VEI of 5 is ten times "bigger" than one with a VEI of 4. To give a
sense of magnitude, I list below the VEI for some familiar recent
and historic eruptions:

Eruption           VEI             Stratospheric Aerosol,
                                   Megatons (Mt)

Kilauea             0-1            -
Erebus, 1976-84     1-2            -
Augustine, 1976     4              0.6 
St Helen's, 1980    5 (barely)     0.55 
El Chichon, 1982    5              12
Pinatubo, 1991      5-6            30
Krakatau, 1883      6              50 (estimated)
Tambora, 1815       7              80-200 (estimated)

[Smithsonian] [Symonds et al.] [Sigurdsson] [Pinatubo] [WMO 1988]
[Bluth et al.] [McCormick et al. 1995]

Roughly speaking, an eruption with VEI>3 can penetrate the
stratosphere. An eruption with VEI>5 can send a plume up to 25km, in the
middle of the ozone layer. Such eruptions occur about once a decade.
Since the VEI is not designed specifically to measure a volcano's impact
on the stratosphere, I have also listed the total mass of stratospheric
aerosols (mostly sulfates) produced by the eruption. (Note that St.
Helens produced much less aerosol than El Chichon - St. Helens blew out
sideways, dumping a large ash cloud over eastern Washington, rather than
ejecting its gases into the stratosphere.) Passively degassing volcanoes
such as Kilauea and Erebus are far too weak to penetrate the
stratosphere, but explosive eruptions like El Chichon and Pinatubo need
to be considered in detail.

Before 1982, there were no direct measurements of the amount of HCl
that an explosive eruption put into the stratosphere.  There were,
however, estimates of the _total_ chlorine production from an
eruption, based upon such geophysical techniques as analysis of
glass inclusions trapped in volcanic rocks.  [Cadle] [Johnston]
[Sigurdsson] [Symonds et al.] There was much debate
about how much of the emitted chlorine reached the stratosphere;
estimates ranged from < 0.03 Mt/year [Cadle] to 0.1-1.0 Mt/year
[Symonds et al.].  During the 1980's emissions of CFC's and related
compounds contributed ~1 Mt of chlorine per year to the
atmosphere. [Prather et al.] This results in an annual flux of >0.3
Mt/yr of chlorine into the stratosphere. The _highest_ estimates
of volcanic emissions - upper limits calculated by assuming that
_all_ of the HCl from a major eruption reached and stayed in the
stratosphere - were thus of the same order of magnitude as human
sources.  (There is no support whatsoever for the claim that a 
_single_ recent eruption produced ~500 times as much chlorine as a 
year's worth of CFC production. This wildly inaccurate number appears
to have originated as an editorial mistake in a scientific encyclopedia.)

It is very difficult to reconcile the higher estimates with the
altitude and time-dependence of stratospheric HCl. The volcanic
contribution to the upper stratosphere should come in sudden bursts
following major eruptions, and it should initially be largest in
the vicinity of the volcanic plume. Since vertical transport in the
stratosphere is slow, one would expect to see the altitude profile
change abruptly after a major eruption, whereas it has maintained
more-or-less the same shape since it was first measured in 1975. 
One would also not expect a strong correlation between HCl and
organochlorine compounds if volcanic injection were contributing
~50% of the total HCl.  If half of the HCl has an inorganic origin,
where is all that _organic_ stratospheric chlorine going? 

The issue has now been largely resolved by _direct_ measurements of the
stratospheric HCl produced by El Chichon, the most important eruption of
the 1980's, and Pinatubo, the largest since 1912. It was found that El
Chichon injected *0.04* Mt of HCl [Mankin and Coffey].  The much bigger
eruption of Pinatubo produced less [Mankin, Coffey and Goldman] [Wallace
and Livingston 1992], - in fact the authors were not sure that they had
measured _any_ significant increase. Analysis of ice cores leads to
similar conclusions for historic eruptions [Delmas]. The ice cores show
significantly enhanced levels of sulfur following major historic
eruptions, but no enhancement in chlorine, showing that the chlorine
produced in the eruption did not survive long enough to be transported
to polar regions. It is clear, then, that even though major eruptions
produce large amounts of chlorine in the form of HCl, most of that HCl
either never enters the stratosphere, or is very rapidly removed from it.

Recent model calculations [Pinto et al.] [Tabazadeh and Turco]
have clarified the physics involved.  A volcanic plume contains
approximately 1000 times as much water vapor as HCl. As the plume
rises and cools the water condenses, capturing the HCl as it does
so and returning it to the earth in the extensive rain showers that
typically follow major eruptions. HCl can also be removed if it
is adsorbed on ice or ash particles. Model calculations show that
more than 99% of the HCl is removed by these processes, in good
agreement with observations. 

.............................
In summary:

 * Older indirect _estimates_ of the contribution of volcanic
   eruptions to stratospheric chlorine gave results that ranged  
   from much less than anthropogenic to somewhat larger than 
   anthropogenic. It is difficult to reconcile the larger estimates 
   with the altitude distribution of inorganic chlorine in the 
   stratosphere, or its steady increase over the past 20 years.  
   Nevertheless, these estimates raised an important scientific 
   question that needed to be resolved by _direct_ measurements 
   in the stratosphere. 

 * Direct measurements on El Chichon, the largest eruption of
   the 1980's, and on Pinatubo, the largest since 1912, show
   that the volcanic contribution is small. 

 * Claims that volcanoes produce more stratospheric chlorine than
   human activity arise from the careless use of old scientific
   estimates that have since been refuted by observation.
 
 * Claims that a single recent eruption injected ~500 times a year's 
   CFC production into the stratosphere have no scientific basis
   whatsoever.

.................................................................

To conclude, we need to say something about Mt. Erebus.  In an
article in _21st Century_ (July/August 1989), Rogelio Maduro
claimed that this Antarctic volcano has been erupting constantly
for the last 100 years, emitting more than 1000 tons of chlorine
per day. Mt. Erebus has in fact been simmering quietly for over a
century [ARS] but the estimate of 1000 tons/day of HCl only applied
to an especially active period between 1976 and 1983 [Kyle et al. 1990].
Moreover, that estimate has been since been reduced to 167 tons/day
(0.0609 Mt/year). By late 1984 emissions had dropped by an order of 
magnitude, and have remained at low levels since; HCl emissions
_at the crater rim_ were 19 tons/day (0.007 Mt/year) in 1986, 
and 36 tons/day (0.013 Mt/year) in 1991. [Zreda-Gostynska et al.] 
Since this is a passively degassing volcano (VEI=1-2 in the active 
period), very little of this HCl reaches the stratosphere. The
Erebus plume never rises more than 0.5 km above the volcano, 
and in fact the gas usually just oozes over the crater rim. Indeed, 
one purpose of the measurements of Kyle et al. was to explain high 
Cl concentrations in Antarctic snow.

In case you think your fellow Freepers are LaRouche supporters, read these threads.

Seeking Info on Lyndon LaRouche

Just Exactly Who is Lyndon LaRouche?

Refuting the author isn't hard. Solid science has disproven his major assertions. Note the last paragraph of this piece deals with Maduro's volcano theory.

Does it?

Fred Singer and others didn't agree, and they pointed out the selectiveness of Rowland et al., as well as the political agenda behind them.

OZONE DEPLETION AND CFC THEORY
by S. Fred Singer
Science, September 1993

1. Gary Taubes' article ("The Ozone Backlash," Science, June 11, pp 1580-1583) refers to my commentaries as "purporting to shoot holes in the [CFC] theory of ozone depletion." This is hardly necessary; since March 1988 numerous press releases have announced ozone depletion to be "worse than expected" [from the theory]--thus effectively discrediting it.

My comments have pointed to the lack--so far--of convincing observational evidence for long-term ozone depletion:

The data from ground-based observing stations are reported to be contaminated by UV absorption from atmospheric sulfur dioxide (1).

The statistical treatment is inadequate, with the derived "trend" strongly dependent on the time interval selected for analysis (2).

There is also the problem of disentangling any CFC effects from long-term ozone trends of natural origin, correlated with well-recorded trends in sunspot numbers (3).

Obviously, one cannot exclude the possibility of a long-term depletion of ozone due to anthropogenic causes, and specifically due to CFCs. But with each cause producing its characteristic "finger prints," proof must rely on a longer time series of more detailed observations (of CFC-specific altitude, latitude, and seasonal dependence).

2. While skeptical about the evidence for depletion, I consider the Antarctic ozone "hole" to be a genuine phenomenon, but have held a somewhat different view about its future. I have speculated (4) that--once there is sufficient chlorine present--the intensity of the hole is mainly controlled by the presence of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs), and therefore by temperature and humidity rather than just atmospheric CFC concentration. Because the ongoing increase in atmospheric CO2 should gradually lower stratospheric temperatures (as a result of increased radiation loss), and the increase in methane should gradually increase stratospheric water vapor content (5), it is possible that the hole will persist--even if the chlorine concentration falls below the pre-1975 value. We don't know for certain where the chlorine threshold lies; it is possible therefore that an ozone hole could form in the Arctic if climate conditions favor the formation of PSCs there--even in the absence of CFC-produced chlorine (4).

3. Another controversial issue is covered by Taubes and in an adjacent article (6): What are the relative contribu- tions of natural and human sources to stratospheric chlorine? One side claims that the major sources are volcanic (7,8). The other side criticizes these estimates, arguing that nearly all of the chlorine emitted by volcanic and oceanic sources is washed out in the lower atmosphere, "with negligible quantities reaching the stratosphere" (9). A recent paper (10) claims removal of "up to" four orders of magnitude; but Taubes relates that El Chichon increased global stratospheric chlorine by 10 percent. I conclude that reliable statements about the relative effects of natural and human sources should be based on observed trends of stratospheric chlorine rather than on speculative calculations.

Rowland correctly quotes my views on sources of chlorine as of 1988 (11), but does not cite the relevant 1987 papers by Zander et al (12). They found that the total columns of HCl and HF (the major stratospheric reservoir gases for chlorine and fluorine) increased, from 1977 to 1986, at rates of (0.75 + 0.2)% and (8.5 + 1)% per year, respectively. Since HF is ascribed entirely to CFCs, the much lower trend for HCl would lead one to believe that there are large natural sources of stratospheric chlorine that overwhelm the CFC contribution.

This situation changed in 1991, however, when Curtis Rinsland et al, repeating Zander's measurements of solar IR spectra, reported increases for HCl and HF of (5.1 + 0.7)% and (10.9 + 1.1)% per year, respectively, for the period 1977-1990, thus suggesting CFCs as a major source (13). Nevertheless, Rinsland et al conclude--and I tend to agree: "...in contrast to HF, there are significant natural as well as anthropogenic sources of HCl."

According to Taubes, Rowland and others tag their opponents with "selective use of ...scientific papers and an equally discretionary choice of scientific results..." But in his "President's Lecture" Rowland quotes only papers that support his own view on CFC sources; the 1983 paper (14) he cites is in apparent disagreement with Zander's 1987 findings, and has been effectively criticized by Prinn (15).

I note in passing that the Montreal Protocol was signed in November 1987, and that production limits on CFCs were tightened in the period 1987 to 1991, when published scientific data indicated that CFCs were not an important source of stratospheric chlorine.

S. Fred Singer Science & Environmental Policy Project

References and Notes:

D. DeMuer and H. DeBacker, "Revision of 20 years Dobson Total Ozone Data at Uccle (Belgium): Fictitious Dobson Total Ozone Trends Induced by Sulfur Dioxide Trends," J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 97, pp. 5921-5937, April 20, 1992

S. F. Singer, "What Could Be Causing Global Ozone Depletion?" in Climate Impact of Solar Variability (K. H. Schatten and A. Arking, eds.) NASA Publication 3086, 1990

J. K. Angell, "On the Relation Between Atmospheric Ozone and Sunspot Number," J. Climate, Vol. 2, pp. 1404-1416 (1989)

S. F. Singer, "Does the Antarctic Ozone Hole Have a Future?" Eos (Transact. Am. Geophys. Union) Vol. 69, No. 47, p.1588, Nov. 22, 1988.

S. F. Singer, "Stratospheric Water Vapor Increase Due to Human Activities," Nature, Vol. 223, pp. 543-547 (1971)

F. S. Rowland, "President's Lecture: The Need for Scientific Communication with the Public," Science, Vol. 260, pp. 1571- 1576 (1993)

R. A. Maduro and R. Schauerhammer, The Holes in the Ozone Scare (21st Century Science Associates, Washington, D.C. 1992)

D. A. Johnston, Science, Vol. 209, 491 (1980). An even earlier publication is that of J. A. Ryan and N. R. Mukherjee, "Sources of Stratospheric Gaseous Chlorine" Rev. Geophys. Space Phys., Vol. 13, pp. 650-658 (1975).

F. S. Rowland, loc. cit., p. 1573

A. Tabazadeh and R. P. Turco, "Stratospheric Chlorine Injection by Volcanic Eruptions: HCl Scavenging and Implications for Ozone," Science, Vol. 260, pp. 1082-1086 (1993)

F. S. Rowland, loc. cit., p. 1576, Ref. 13: ["...evidence is firming up that volcanoes...contribute substantially to strato- spheric chlorine and thus dilute the effects of CFCs," quoted from S. F. Singer, Natl. Rev. 41, p. 37 (30 June 1989)]

R. Zander et al, "Monitoring of the Integrated Column of Hydrogen Fluoride Above the Jungfraujoch Station Since 1977--The HF/HCl Column Ratio," J. Atmos. Chem., Vol. 5, pp. 385-394 (1987); R. Zander et al, "Column Abundance and the Long-Term Trend of Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) Above the Jungfraujoch Station," J. Atmos. Chem., Vol. 5, pp. 395-404 (1987). Incidentally, the reported increasing trend for fluorine clearly demonstrates that CFCs are penetrating into the stratosphere; see also review by F.S. Rowland, "Chlorofluorocarbons, Stratospheric Ozone, and the Antarctic 'Ozone Hole'," in Global Climate Change (S. F. Singer, ed.) Paragon House, New York, 1989

C. P. Rinsland, J.S. Levine, A. Goldman, N.D. Sze, M. K. Ko, and D. W. Johnson, "Infrared Measurements of HF and HCl Total Column Abundances Above Kitt Peak 1977-1990," J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 96, D8, pp. 15523-15540, Aug. 20, 1991. W. G. Mankin and M. T. Coffey, "Latitudinal Distributions and Temporal Changes of Stratospheric HCl and HF," J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 88, pp. 10776-10784 (1983). They report increases of 5% and 12% per year, for HCl and HF, resp., based on aircraft observations between 1978 and 1982.

R. G. Prinn, "How Have the Atmospheric Concentrations of the Halocarbons Changed?" in The Changing Atmosphere (F. S. Rowland and I. S. A. Isaksen, eds.), pp. 33-48, John Wiley, New York, 1988. Prinn estimates that the results of Mankin and Coffey have a large 1-sigma uncertainty of +4.5% and +5.8 %, resp. Thus the rate of increase of stratospheric chlorine could well be close to zero, in agreement with Zander's 1987 result.

Followups

August 30, 1993 Dear Colleague:

The ozone situation is heating up again--just when we thought that there was nothing more that could be done to modify a string of policies based on uncertain and dubious science. A front page story in the April 15, 1993 Washington Post by science reporter Boyce Rensberger triggered this latest eruption. Quoting well-known environmental activists such as Michael Oppenheimer, it made the point that ozone depletion and the Antarctic ozone hole (AOH) are no longer a problem and would not have led to a catastrophe in any case.

I commented on the Post article in a Washington Times op-ed, and Candace Crandall replied in the "Letters" column to a self-serving riposte from Oppenheimer. But the big guns came into play in a very long and detailed article by Pamela Zurer in the May 24 issue of Chemical & Engineering News and in a June 11 article in Science by Gary Taubes. Both articles gave the impression that I had dropped my skepticism about ozone depletion and the CFC-ozone theory. I invite your attention to my attached Letters of response, and to a supporting letter by Prof. Henry Linden, who serves on the SEPP advisory board and knows my publications and views.

I have absolutely no objection to phasing out CFCs--provided only that peer-reviewed scientific evidence supports such a policy. But many of us are concerned that CFC policy continues to be made instead on the basis of press release hyperbole. Let me quote some examples:

The ozone depletion "threat" actually goes back to the SST controversy more than 20 years ago. The skin cancer issue keeps being brought up, with copious confusion between malignant melanoma (which may depend on UV-A, and thus not on ozone) and the non- melanoma cancers (which do increase at lower latitudes and therefore have some dependence on UV-B intensity). Note however that UV-B increases by 5000 percent, just in going from the pole to the equator. This means that a 10% ozone decline increases UV-B exposure equivalent to moving about 100 miles towards the equator. [The skin cancer scare has now been joined by shrill claims about cataracts, immune system damage (raising the spectre of AIDS), plankton death and other ecological disasters. We even hear stories about blind sheep, etc., in Patagonia. There is no evidence to support such scares.]

A more recent example is the March 1988 press conference by the Ozone Trends Panel (OTP), the first to allege the existence of global ozone depletion. The underlying data were never fully published; what amounts to an internal report appeared some two years later. An independent analysis by Hill & Bishop, which showed that the depletion depended on the choice of time interval, appeared only in preprint form and was eliminated from their final published paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Evidently, the reported trend is at least partly an artifact of the analysis. My critique of the depletion claim was not accepted for publication because the OTP had not published its work--a real Catch-22. I finally put my objections into the proceedings of a NASA conference, rather than fight the referees. (Cf. enclosed Letters.)

The question of the relative contribution of human and natural sources to stratospheric chlorine has been treated cavalierly by both sides in the debate. My view is that it can only be settled by actual observations of long-term trends of stratospheric chlorine--not by calculations. The experimental situation has moved back and forth. Zander's results published in 1987 convinced many of us that natural sources were the most important. Rinsland's results published in 1991 suggested that CFCs were a major source, along with natural sources (see his paper and my Letter to Wash. Post). Will the situation change again?

I note in passing that the Montreal Protocol was signed in November 1987, and that production limits on CFCs were tightened in the years 1987 to 1991--during a period when published scientific data indicated that CFCs were not an important source of strato- spheric chlorine. (Cf. enclosed review by Prinn and graph by Molina, from a 1988 volume edited by F.S. Rowland!)

Why was Zander's 1987 result ignored? The likely answer: Hype about the Antarctic ozone hole (AOH), which grew rapidly from the late 70s to the middle 80s--and was supposed to swallow us all. The AOH momentum proved to be so strong that all scientific evidence for natural sources of chlorine was pushed aside, as international bureaucrats achieved first a "framework convention," then a protocol to limit CFC production, then a production rollback, and finally a complete phaseout. You might recognize this pattern as the paradigm proposed for CO2 by greenhouse warming activists.

The final step was the five-year acceleration of the CFC production phaseout, from 2000 to 1996. It came about as the direct result of yet another press conference, the infamous February 3, 1992 NASA announcement of "record" levels of chlorine monoxide in the Arctic stratosphere. NASA scientists misled journalists into declaring an imminent Arctic ozone "hole." Al Gore even castigated Bush for allowing an "ozone hole over Kennebunkport." Within a few days, the Senate had passed a 96-0 resolution and Bush had advanced the phaseout date to December 31, 1995. After the completion of the experiment series on April 30, however, NASA finally admitted that no ozone hole had opened up over the United States. They had known--or should have known--at the time of the Feb. press conference that the ClO peak had passed--as was recently confirmed by the UARS (satellite) results (Nature, April 15, 1993).

Watch for the next chapter in the ozone story as the deadline for the CFC phaseout approaches and the public becomes increasingly exercised about the cost of servicing auto air conditioners and refrigerators. In the meantime, the Post article has partisans of the CFC/ozone depletion theory mobilizing for damage control.

Sincerely yours,

S. Fred Singer

Note added September 7, 1993: COMMENTS ON ROWLAND LETTER OF AUG. 27 F.Sherwood Rowland, in responding to my Aug 27 Letter to Science, exhibits even greater "selective use" of data than in his AAAS presidential address (Science, June 11). Rowland's response is artfully worded and generally avoids the points raised in my Letter. But as you know, Science does not permit rebuttal; hence this Note. There are three reasons for sending it out:

Rowland's well-known position in the CFC-ozone controversy, coupled with his prestige as past president of AAAS, might unduly influence the non-specialist.

This is a classic case study of scientific data used for the purpose of advocacy.

Simply, to put the record straight. (For convenience I have numbered the paragraphs of his Letter.)/ul> Para 1: Volcanic contribution to stratospheric chlorine Rowland quotes Mankin and Coffey (1983) to support: 1) a general, long-term increase in stratospheric chlorine, and 2) a less than 10% increase after El Chichon (1982). This is doubly wrong. 1) Their reported general increase has been shown by Prinn to be spurious -- in Rowland's own book, no less--and FSR apparently accepts Prinn's critique. 2) Also in this 1988 book--in the same review paper on "How Have the Atmospheric Concentrations of the Halocarbons Changed?"-- Prinn presents the actual data of Mankin and Coffey (cf. attached figure) showing a striking increase in high-latitude chlorine following the El Chichon eruption.

Finally, Mankin and Coffey themselves do not agree with Rowland in their paper "Increased Stratospheric Hydrogen Chloride in the El Chichon Cloud" (Science 226, pp. 170-172, 1984). But Rowland does not cite this 1984 paper.

Rowland has studiously avoided mentioning the main conclusion of Zander's (1987) papers, i.e. hardly any increase in stratospher- ic HCl over ten years. (FSR now admits this, but cf. below.) Nor has he mentioned evidence by Molina and by deZafra supporting Zander's result of natural chlorine overwhelming CFC-derived chlorine--again quoted in the same Prinn paper in FSR's book, which exhibits the attached figure (Molina 1985). One sees there clearly an upward trend of HF, proving that CFCs do penetrate into the stratosphere--no argument about that. But the absence of apprecia- ble upward trends of HCl and ClO suggests that the CFC contribution is swamped by other chlorine sources that are constant, i.e. natural.

For good measure, Rowland distorts my 1988 quote about natural sources (taken from a popular article in National Review-- cf. here ref. 13 of Rowland's presidential address in June 11 Science) by failing to mention that it was in line with the scientific evidence then available.

Para 2: Are CFCs the "only significant source"?

Rowland completely misrepresents Rinsland's negative answer to this question; (cf. here my direct quote from Rinsland et al about "significant natural sources").

Rowland finally quotes Zander (1992), but misleadingly. Unlike Zander's 1987 papers, his 1992 paper does not discuss trends at all but gives a 1985 "snapshot" of the vertical distribution of chlorine and fluorine compounds (from the ATMOS satellite experi- ment). Further, Rowland fails to tell us that Zander, on p. 172 of his 1992 paper, mentions the importance of natural sources for Cl (as opposed to F).

Para 3: Rainout of natural sources of Cl.

I have already commented on the folly of relying on the accuracy of calculations of removal by rainfall, when the natural emissions of chlorine exceed those from CFCs by such huge factors. (To render natural sources unimportant requires removal of over 99.99 %.) Therefore I would not put much faith in Rowland's (theoretical) conclusion of "negligible quantities reaching the stratosphere," particularly in view of the evidence from the Mankin-Coffey graph and Gary Taubes' statement in Science (June 11) about El Chichon's contribution.

Para 4: No comment necessary

Para 5: Global Ozone Depletion

DeMuer and DeBacker, as careful scientists, talk first only about the SO2 corrections necessary for their own data. But elsewhere in their paper, and in their Abstract, they explain why their conclusion-- that the reported depletion is "fictitious"-- may hold throughout the northern hemisphere. They also criticize the "massaging" of data from the Dobson ozone network used by the OTP.

Para 6: Temperature trends and heterogeneous reactions

Rowland focuses on short-term temperature changes (i.e., over weeks), choosing to misunderstand my clearly stated point that both stratospheric temperature and humidity should gradually change (i.e., over years)--the former confirmed recently by the satellite observations of Christy and Spencer, the latter point suggested in my 1971 Nature paper (and restated by Blake and Rowland in Science 239, 1129, 1988).

I was surprised to learn that it was Solomon (1986) who postulated heterogeneous reactions. That notion had been around for about 20 years but was avoided by theorists as being too diffi- cult to handle. (Cf. here, e.g., the attached 1975 exchange of letters with Cicerone.)

Rowland quotes only what supports his position: Exactly my point!

Those who want an insight into Rowland's general world view should study the attached "Morelia Declaration," of which he is signatory #2.

One could of course go on and mention the economic impact of precipitous CFC removal, especially on the poor throughout the world; but this would take us beyond science. (See here the op-ed "Icons collapse, yet policy marches on" in the Washington Times, April 21, 1993.)

That is, if Freon has a damned thing to do with waning and waxing of the ozone layer.

Which I doubt.

It doesn't matter if you doubt it (which I do as well); you're still paying more for energy because these enviralmental nimrods ramrodded this thing through, banning the most efficient refrigerants known to man, and setting back the energy efficiency of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment ten years at one fell swoop.

Ahh, but I didn't claim that I or my fellow FReepers were LaRouche supporters. LaRouche did not write that article. You can tell because of the absence of Kissenger, Bush, the "Drug"Queen of England, or anti-semitic angles to it.

The slur I refer to is the one you made against the author, Maduro.

Just because his article was published in LaRouche's mag or newsletter doesn't automatically disqualify it's validity. And his book as well as the article is heavily referenced to Zander, Truab, Tazieff, and Singer all topnotch scientist in fields related to the sciences involved.

The guy who really nailed the greenies on the CFC theory(as well as others-Global Warming etc.) and the lack of science in them is formerly one of them, Bjorn Lomborg, in his book The Skeptical Environmentalist. Unfortunately it is fairly new and not much has made it to the web yet. And I don't have it for reference ATM.

Here's some more from Tazieff, in a 1994 Times article.

Telling little green lies?

The hole in the ozone layer has more to do with politics than deodorants, a French scientist tells Ian Phillips.

If there is one thing Haroun Tazieff believes in, it is speaking his mind. "When I've got something to say, I say it," he asserts. In the past, France's most famous volcano expert has raged about everything from the Mafia to television presenters, but in recent years he has found a new hobby-horse - the ecological lies he believes Green politicians have invented to scare the electorate into voting for them.

One of his favourites is the disintegration of the ozone layer by the infamous CFC gases. "It's a complete lie," he told me vehemently, when we met in Paris recently. "The ozone hole is a natural hole which appears above the Antarctic at the beginning of October and has disappeared by the end of December. In Europe, I think I'm the only person to refute it, and I have never been officially contradicted, neither by ecologists nor by scientists."

Yves Cochet, spokesman for the French ecology party, Les Verts, admits: "Although the majority of scientists say that DFC gases probably have a lethal effect on the ozone layer, nothing has been proved." He adds: "We are obliged to talk of an ozone hole in the media, because then people get a very visual impression, but of course, it is much more diffuse than that."

At 80, Tazieff remains as clear-thinking as ever. He argues that many of France's leading ecologists have no scientific background. A former boxer, he trained first as an agronomist and then as a geologist, which led to a lifetime study of volcanoes.

One of the founding fathers of the French ecological movement and a former minister for the prevention of major natural and technological risks, Tazieff is well qualified to talk about environmental issues. He has been adviser to most of France's environment ministers over the past decade.

Despite this he asserts that Green parties are running a "campaign of deliberate, untruthful scaremongering," and the imaginary problems they espouse have led to millions of pounds being directed towards "environmental windmills" rather than the real threats of pollution.

It seemed strange to Tazieff that an ozone hole situated above the Antarctic was blamed on CFC gases, when most deodorants were sprayed in the northern hemisphere.

He was surprised to discover an article in the 1950 Annals of Geophysics reporting the existence of ozone holes above Norway in 1926 - years before CFC's were even dreamt of - and was astounded to find that the hole above the Antarctic was not the recent phenomenon ecologists claimed it to be. It was actually discovered as far back as 1957, he says, by the English scientist, Gordon Dobson, but it was only in the mid-eighties that satellite photos began to highlight it in a rather spectacular way.

Tazieff believes that these dramatic images have been used to hoodwink the public. He believes that the hole is due to the low levels of ultraviolet rays (which are necessary to produce ozone) over the Antarctic at the end of the year, and that the large and swift movements of air masses around the continent also play their part.

On September 5, 1987, there was a relatively large reduction of 0.1 per cent in the levels of ozone over a surface of three million square kilometres near the Palmer peninsula in the Antarctic. Tazieff is convinced there is no way that the CFCs could have broken down so much ozone in such a short space of time.

Even if CFCs do have an effect, he asserts that it must be an insignificant one. After all, it is alleged that it is the chlorine in the CFCs which breaks down the ozone molecules. However, only 7,500 tons of chlorine are released from the breakdown of CFCs every year, against 600 million tons from the evaporation of seawater and 36 million from volcanoes.

What is more, the effect of chlorine is to break down the ozone into oxygen plus by-products, and it simply requires the presence of ultraviolet rays to transform the oxygen back into ozone.

Fiona Weir, atmosphere campaigner for Friends of the Earth, does not dispute the role played by natural phenomena, but insists there is also a massive man-made effect. She dismisses Tazieff's arguments as being out of date, and sees the ozone problem as more than a polar phenomenon, claiming that even over mid-latitudes, levels of ozone are being depleted by 3 per cent per decade. "That is absolutely untrue," responds Tazieff. These figures have not been proved, and there are more people that refute them than accept them. Large chemical companies wanted to keep their monopoly on the market. After half a century of being protected by patents, CFCs were on the point of falling into the public domain. To keep the whole of the pie themselves, what better way than to have them banned, requiring the use of a replacement gas, which is difficult to produce and thus remains exclusive to large companies which possess the technical know-how."

Ian Phillips, The Times, 14 October 1994

Darn forgot the source link OZONE DEPLETION AND CFC THEORY .

Here's a lot more of Fred Singer's Selected Articles, Editorials, Letters, Technical Comments, Papers, Congressional Testimony, Lectures, Reports, and Press Releases.

Maduro has closer links to LaRouche than just publishing a single article in a LaRouche publication. Maduro is an editor of that magazine, and all his recent books and articles have been published by it. His field of specialty, by the way, is chemical lasers. His selective quoting of out-of-date articles does not make his conclusions valid.

Haroun Tazieff was a well-respected volcanologist, but not a specialist in atmospheric chemistry. He certainly has a right to comment, but he is no expert in the field.

If you look at the chart I posted of ozone measurements at the South Pole you will notice that it dates back to 1957. Yes, Dobson's measurements. The new reductions are far greater than the comparatively minor 'ozone hole' Dobson detected.

Singer is the one scientist with a specialty in atmospheric science who has come out against the CFC-ozone link. For some reason he cannot convince the rest of the scientific world. Is it a conspiracy? Not likely. Granted scientists can be victims of the herd mentallity. But the real reason is that the weight of evidence favors the CFC-ozone theory.

If Singer were President of the U.S. today, he'd be saying that the link between Al-Qaeda and 9/11 hasn't yet been proved and that more study is required.

PS- If you don't believe in the CFC-ozone theory then you don't probably believe the conclusion of the Japanese scientists in the posted article either.

Mario Molina knew nothing about the stratosphere or stratospheric chemistry; his expertise was in chemical lasers. For that matter, neither did F. Sherwood Rowland, who had graduated from Ohio Wesleyan University with a major in chemistry and a minor in journalism.

Rogelio Maduro's degree is in Geology.

Thanks for the rundown. It seems anyone with a B.S. feels qualified to discuss the issue.

I've never bought the Ozone Hole anyway. The sun makes ozone in a chemical reaction with the Earth's atmosphere. During the Antartic winter, there is very little sunlight, which causes a reduction in the amount of ozone.

Second, I may be wrong, but I thought CFC's were heavier than air and were overwhelmingly used in the northern hemisphere. How did the CFC's get to the southern hemisphere and up to high altitudes is sufficient quantities to affect the amount of ozone?

Why would that '75 law have an immediate effect? How much CFC's were still on the market, as the supply was used up? How long would it take for a CFC used by a consumer in Canada at ground level take to get to the southern hemisphere and up to the high altitude needed to have an effect?

The sun makes ozone in a chemical reaction with the Earth's atmosphere. During the Antartic winter, there is very little sunlight, which causes a reduction in the amount of ozone.

Right. But then why is the Antarctic ozone hole suddenly so much worse? The Arctic hole is much less significant, even though the poles receive the nearly same amount of light in their respective seasons. The answer is that the air in the stratosphere circulates.

Second, I may be wrong, but I thought CFC's were heavier than air

You have surely noticed that the air is not stratified by weight of molecules. If that were the case there would be layers of oxygen and nitrogen. The air closest to the ground would be deadly.

...and were overwhelmingly used in the northern hemisphere. How did the CFC's get to the southern hemisphere

The answer is that the air in the stratosphere circulates. It moves more horizontally between the hemispheres than it does vertically, particarly to the lowest layer, the troposphere.

and up to high altitudes is sufficient quantities to affect the amount of ozone?

That's the trick. Most chlorine and bromine compounds are so reactive that they combine with other molecules and are precipitated out of the air. Chlorofluorocarbons, on the other hand, are so inert that one was sold as 'Freon,' a play on Neon, one of the noble gases.

These noble gases eventually leak up into the stratospere. Each CFC molecule is broken apart by the UV rays and the chlorine atoms catalytically destroy ozone molecules. Theoretically a CFC molecle can will destroy something like 20 ozone molecules, as I recall. So even 'small' quantities (tens of thousands of tons or more) may have an affect on the thin ozone layer.

How much CFC's were still on the market, as the supply was used up?

All CFCs and halogens are being phased out according to the 1987 Montreal Protocol. The very last of those gases is currently scheduled to cease production and use in 2040. The vast bulk is being eliminated much sooner.

How long would it take for a CFC used by a consumer in Canada at ground level take to get to the southern hemisphere and up to the high altitude needed to have an effect?

There is very little mixing of air between the troposhpere and the stratosphere. I don't remember the exact numbers, but apparently can take years for a CFC molecule to make it to the stratosphere.

Thank you for taking the time and effort to answer my questions. I've become very suspicious and skeptical of the assertions of the enviro-wackos and their scientist fellow travelers. I have a couple further comments/questions.

The sun makes ozone in a chemical reaction with the Earth's atmosphere. During the Antartic winter, there is very little sunlight, which causes a reduction in the amount of ozone.

Right. But then why is the Antarctic ozone hole suddenly so much worse? The Arctic hole is much less significant, even though the poles receive the nearly same amount of light in their respective seasons. The answer is that the air in the stratosphere circulates.

Where's the evidence that the ozone hole is suddenly much worse? Soon after the ozone hole issue first arose, the wacko scientists told us this was new, then info came out that the ozone hole went back at least to the 50's.

Second, I may be wrong, but I thought CFC's were heavier than air

You have surely noticed that the air is not stratified by weight of molecules. If that were the case there would be layers of oxygen and nitrogen. The air closest to the ground would be deadly.

No, that wasn't my point at all, I was thinking more along the lines of the time and difficulty that heavier than air particles would have to go up tens of thousands of feet in the air and that the dilution and degradation would be such that it would be a stretch to say that those molecules affected the ozone hole.

...and were overwhelmingly used in the northern hemisphere. How did the CFC's get to the southern hemisphere

The answer is that the air in the stratosphere circulates. It moves more horizontally between the hemispheres than it does vertically, particularly to the lowest layer, the troposphere.

Okay, my question was another factor that would increase the time and reduce the effect of a molecule starting at ground level in the northern hemisphere would have at high altitudes over the South Pole. You seem to be backing me up, in that the horizontal circulation is more important than the vertical, increasing the time for that Canadian molecule to reach high altitudes.

and up to high altitudes is sufficient quantities to affect the amount of ozone?

That's the trick. Most chlorine and bromine compounds are so reactive that they combine with other molecules and are precipitated out of the air. Chlorofluorocarbons, on the other hand, are so inert that one was sold as 'Freon,' a play on Neon, one of the noble gases.

If they are so inert, how then do they have such an effect on the ozone?

These noble gases eventually leak up into the stratospere. Each CFC molecule is broken apart by the UV rays and the chlorine atoms catalytically destroy ozone molecules. Theoretically a CFC molecle can will destroy something like 20 ozone molecules, as I recall. So even 'small' quantities (tens of thousands of tons or more) may have an affect on the thin ozone layer.

All right, let's run the numbers. What is the weight of the ozone destroyed? Apparently, 1/20th of that weight would be needed to destroy that amount of ozone. Again, this sounds as if it would have to be tons and tons of CFC's. Is this realistic?

How much CFC's were still on the market, as the supply was used up?

All CFCs and halogens are being phased out according to the 1987 Montreal Protocol. The very last of those gases is currently scheduled to cease production and use in 2040. The vast bulk is being eliminated much sooner.

The article claimed an immediate reduction of the effect on the ozone hole following the passage of the law. Laws don't affect nature. Did the law cause an immediate reduction in CFC's so that it had an immediate effect on the ozone hole. I'm skeptical. When the law was passed, all those CFC's from the previous years of usage where still on their way to the South Pole. If the ozone hole changed immediately after the passage of the law, it wasn't caused by the law, but by some other natural process. When was the eruption of Mt Pinatubo? So, if some other natural process affected the ozone hole, perhaps subsequent changes were also do to other natural processes and not the CFC's.

How long would it take for a CFC used by a consumer in Canada at ground level take to get to the southern hemisphere and up to the high altitude needed to have an effect?

There is very little mixing of air between the troposhpere and the stratosphere. I don't remember the exact numbers, but apparently can take years for a CFC molecule to make it to the stratosphere.

Well, this answers some of questions and I believe backs up my skepticism of the entire ozone hole/CFC theory. How can enough CFC's get so high over the South Pole to have an effect and why don't they have a similar effect elsewhere in the stratosphere? Why not over Southern California?

You capitalist swine! The ozone hole is NOT caused by the lack of sunlight and a volcano in Antartica, it's caused by corporations and their evil chemicals and the use of these chemicals by consumers spraying their underarms, which is evil in its own right. We should be proud of our natural odors. I personally never wash and have a great immune system.(/sarcasm)

Thank you for taking the time and effort to answer my questions.

You're welcome. Many of these questions are answered in these FAQs:
http://www.egs.uct.ac.za/csag/faq/ozone-depletion/intro/faq.html
http://www.egs.uct.ac.za/csag/faq/ozone-depletion/stratcl/faq.html

Where's the evidence that the ozone hole is suddenly much worse? Soon after the ozone hole issue first arose, the wacko scientists told us this was new, then info came out that the ozone hole went back at least to the 50's.

See post #41. These are measurements of the ozone density at the Antarctic hole. The measurements go back to 1957, when the hole was first discovered. As you can see, it has gotten much thinner.

I was thinking more along the lines of the time and difficulty that heavier than air particles would have to go up tens of thousands of feet in the air and that the dilution and degradation would be such that it would be a stretch to say that those molecules affected the ozone hole.

Yes, it does take a lot of time for the CFC molecules to reach the stratosphere. But they have been in production for decades. In 1986 annual production of ozone depleting products was 1.1 million tons. In 1996 it was down to 160,000 tons. Many millions of tons of ODP are still on their way to the stratsophere.

Okay, my question was another factor that would increase the time and reduce the effect of a molecule starting at ground level in the northern hemisphere would have at high altitudes over the South Pole. You seem to be backing me up, in that the horizontal circulation is more important than the vertical, increasing the time for that Canadian molecule to reach high altitudes.

Yes, it takes a lot of time for the CFCs to reach the stratosphere. They are long-lived molecules. That is why such a high-percentage of them eventually make it there.

If they are so inert, how then do they have such an effect on the ozone?

They are virtually inert in the troposphere, the lower atmosphere. Once they arrive in the upper stratosphere the intense ultraviolet rays tear the molecules aprt, releasing the chlorine.

Again, this sounds as if it would have to be tons and tons of CFC's. Is this realistic?

It sure is. Tens of millions of tons of ODPs have been released.

Did the law cause an immediate reduction in CFC's so that it had an immediate effect on the ozone hole. I'm skeptical.

I am too.

So, if some other natural process affected the ozone hole, perhaps subsequent changes were also do to other natural processes and not the CFC's.

According to NASA, natural causes are relatively insignificant:

At this time human activity accounts for 75-85% of the chlorine in the stratosphere. The remaning 15-20% comes almost totally from Methyl chloride, most of that from natural sources and burning of biomass. Large, explosive volcanoes contribute an additional couple of percent.(1-5)
Major and minor sources of stratospheric chlorine

How can enough CFC's get so high over the South Pole to have an effect and why don't they have a similar effect elsewhere in the stratosphere? Why not over Southern California?

I think I've already covered how CFC's make it up to the stratosphere, and once there, how they get to the southern hemisphere. Given all that, why is there a hole over the Antarctic rather that the U.S.? Scientists are still pinning that down, but I believe the current thinking is that convective circulation tends to concentrate the CFCs over the South Pole.

it's caused by corporations and their evil chemicals

'Peace Be With You' credits Haroun Tazieff as a reliable scientist on this subject. Here's his take on why CFCs have been phased out:

Large chemical companies wanted to keep their monopoly on the market. After half a century of being protected by patents, CFCs were on the point of falling into the public domain. To keep the whole of the pie themselves, what better way than to have them banned, requiring the use of a replacement gas, which is difficult to produce and thus remains exclusive to large companies which possess the technical know-how."

In other words, a principal attacker of the CFC-ozone depletion theory believes the whole thing is an evil corporate conspiracy.

Which side did you think the wackos are on?