Its odd isn’t it, for a few months I have been having the fleeting thought, “Whatever happened to the ozone hole.” Actually there are two of them but the one in the southern hemisphere was noticed first which caused a lot of talk, then one was found in the more populous northern one sparking action.
For the last 3-4 years however they seem to have dropped off the planet, you just don’t hear of them any more. I guess with the current fashionability of global warming, ozone holes just aren’t cool any more.
Ron Kitching sent an Email the other day when I was busy and I put it aside, coming back to it today, and there it was, the good ol ozone holes. There was a rather lengthy paper, “CFC Destruction of Ozone - Major Cause of Recent Global Warming!” by Robert A. Ashworth.
For reasons of space I am only using the introduction and the conclusion, but I recommend for those interested to go to the complete article here: -
There has been a lot of discussion about global warming. Some say anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions caused the earth to warm. Others say there is no abnormality at all, that it is just natural warming. As you will see from the data presented and analyzed, a greater than normal warming did occur in recent times but no measurements confirm an increase in CO2, whether anthropogenic or natural, had any effect on global temperatures. There is however, strong evidence that anthropogenic emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were the major cause of the recent abnormal warming.
CFCs have created both unnatural atmospheric cooling and warming based on these facts:
CFCs have destroyed ozone in the lower stratosphere/upper troposphere causing these zones in the atmosphere to cool 1.37 oC from 1966 to 1998, a time span selected to eliminate the effect of the natural solar irradiance (cooling-warming) cycle effect on the earth's temperature.
The loss of ozone allowed more UV light to pass through the stratosphere at a sufficient rate to warm the lower troposphere plus 8-3/4" of the earth by 0.48 oC (1966 to 1998).
Mass and energy balances show that the energy that was absorbed in the lower stratosphere /upper troposphere hit the lower troposphere/earth at a sustainable level of 1.69 x 1018 Btu more in 1998 than it did in 1966.
Greater ozone depletion in the Polar Regions has caused these areas to warm some two and one-half (2 ½) times that of the average earth temperature (1.2 oC vs. 0.48 oC). This has caused permafrost to melt, which is releasing copious quantities of methane, estimated at 100 times that of manmade CO2 release, to the atmosphere. Methane in the atmosphere slowly converts to CO2 and water vapor and its release has created higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
There is a temperature anomaly in Antarctica. The Signey Island landmass further north warmed like the rest of the Polar Regions; but south at Vostok, there has been a cooling effect. Although the cooling at Vostok needs to be analyzed in more detail, because of the large ozone hole there, black body radiation from Vostok (some 11,400 feet above sea level) to outer space is most likely the cause. Especially, since this phenomenon occurred over the same period that stratospheric ozone destruction took place.
Many factors influence the earth's temperature. However, from a scientific analysis, carbon dioxide has little to no effect on the temperature. This is clearly shown, by an earth temperature drop of almost 0.6 oC from January 2007 to January 2008. It should be obvious to everyone who has analyzed climate change that climate-driving forces, other than CO2, control the temperature.
However, chlorofluorocarbon destruction of stratospheric ozone can be correlated nicely with both the cooling and warming temperature anomalies seen over the time span from 1966 to 1998. One can account for most, if not all, of the 0.48oC rise in earth's temperature from 1966 to 1998 with the additional UV light that hit the earth due to ozone destruction in the upper atmosphere.
Ozone destruction has also indirectly created an increase in CO2 concentrations due to the melting of the permafrost in Siberia that has warmed two and one-half (2½) times more than the average earth temperature has risen. The higher temperatures started melting the permafrost, and this in turn created a significant release of methane. Methane slowly reacts with oxygen to convert to CO2 in the atmosphere.
Unless we remove the CFCs from the atmosphere, it appears that the whole earth will continue to be warmer than normal and higher concentrations of CO2 (from permafrost release of methane) will exist until the CFCs in the stratosphere slowly disappear naturally over the next 50-100 years. The exceptions that could alter this are large volcanic eruptions or weather modification techniques as proposed by physicist Freeman Dyson, wherein fine particulate, such as bauxite (Al2O3), is sprayed into the stratosphere to simulate a volcanic eruption, which would absorb more UV light in the stratosphere and would cool the earth.
China and other developing countries are to phase out CFC production in 2010. Some CFC production plants have been shutdown ahead of schedule in these developing countries, which is very beneficial. However, it would not be that difficult to remove CFCs from the atmosphere to bring earth's temperature back to normal much quicker. Although the atmosphere is intricate in how it acts and reacts, it appears that CFCs are the dominant cause of greater than normal earth warming from 1966 to 1998.
Einstein (18) once said, "The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest possible number of hypotheses or axioms". One can do that here using CFC destruction of ozone to explain the recent earth temperature anomalies seen.
The United States Congress will be considering a $1.2 trillion carbon tax this year that, if implemented, would make the recent increase in the cost of gasoline look pale in comparison to the price energy will be after such a tax is imposed. Taxing carbon makes absolutely no sense and will dramatically hurt the economy of every country that implements it - all for no good reason! This paper is a direct challenge to the IPCC; their models are way off base. When one develops a model, actual data needs to be observed to confirm or refute the model that one develops. It looks as though the IPCC did not do this.
I would like to thank Christopher Monckton for his support and suggestions. Most of all I would like to pay tribute to three gentlemen; Paul Crutzen, Sherwood Rowland, and Mario Molina, who saved this earth through their work on the CFC effect on the environment. If they had not worked to stop CFC production, what we are seeing now with global warming would be nothing compared to how bad it would have been without their efforts to stop its production. Their work was not only important from the standpoint of reducing global warming, but also in reducing the occurrence in skin cancer.