As I understand scientists, many are now convinced that cooling air has a far greater effect on the hole in the ozone layer than CFC's. They ask why there is no corresponding hole above the Arctic when CFC usage is greatest in the northern hemisphere.

There's also the question of whether the hole has been there for centuries and it's only recently that we've been able to measure it.

Many also ask whether its a serious problem because they point to the very low percentage of people with skin cancer in the far south and a higher percentage in the tropics. This is easily explained by the incidence at which solar radiation strikes the earth and the amount of atmosphere that the radiation must pass through.

So, is the hole really due to CFCs and is it really any cause for concern? I have no idea.

i heard that duck hunters were actually responsible for blowing holes in the ozone. perhaps there shouldbe legislation that promotes indoor shooting galleries.

The world should be using all it´s resources fixing the hole before spending vast millions on further space exploration.

CFCs - another scare story that will be shown to be completely bogus but which has, and continues, to cost us dear. Will we never learn that all this alarmist cr*p should be reigned in and seen for what it is.

Philip#3: And I know what they can use to fix it, the key planks in the Labour manifesto.

L#4: I'm glad to see that your eco-scepticism isn't restricted to the field of climate change. I don't feel that an environmental article in the Scotsman is complete without you casting the cold light of cynicism on the debate.

Can you offer any evidence to back up your claim that CFCs are a "bogus scare story"? Actually, can you clarify your claim - do you mean
(a) that CFCs don't react with ozone, or
(b) that human-released CFCs don't damage the ozone layer, or
(c) that human-induced ozone layer damage isn't a problem?

You also claim that reducing CFC emissions "has, and continues, to cost us dear". How much has it and does it continue to cost us?

Do you have any evidence to support these claims, or do you simply hold them as an article of faith?

1. John, Melbourne, Australia:
Well put John. We have only just learned to measure this effect and no one is certain what it means or what its history is.

By spreading Doom & Gloom stories the unscrupulous can obtain research grants and the Idiots of the Flat Earth Society can generate fatuous Slogans to shout as they go on yet another pointless march.

I’d like to see some real research applied to climate as a whole that looks at the total picture over the history of the earth and not just single parameters over very short periods.

6. Spartacus
Hello, hello, hello: The Flat Earthers have arrived.

Welcome to the discussion. Please leave your slogans at the door.

All statement should be supported by properly conducted research.
Anecdotal statements are not considered as scientific proof.

Let the debate commence

Ahem, are we not putting the cart before the horse? Is not the weather the result of the hole in the ozone layer? Just asking.

Sanny#8: I was just wondering why L was so convinced that CFCs are a "bogus scare story".

I don't know much about the matter, so have no strong opinions either way. I was in Punta Arenas in the south of Chile a few years ago and my skin tingled in the sun, but that's hardly scientific evidence.

If L or anyone else has information that would help me to make up my mind then I'd be glad to see it.

However, I have to admit that I'm leaning towards NASA in this debate, since they are a bunch of very clever people who put stuff into space. L is an occasional contributor of comments to the Scotsman website.

So unless L comes up with something to back up his claims, I'm probably going to go along with NASA on this one.

Thining ozone layer, global warming, and waring neighbours; which should be our priority?

11. Robert, Kirriemuir : - The first two are only very thin Hypotheses with no real scientific support so let’s not waste time on something that may not even exist. These wars do exist and people are being killed every day to support the egos of Blair & Bush.

I’m happy to leave the Muslims to resolve their own problems and we can send the Muslims in Western Countries to assist their Brethren in the Middle East.

The West should concentrate in reducing its dependence on oil then let the middle east try to eat the oil.

10. Spartacus : -
It is only in very recent times that we have had the ability to monitor the Ozone layer in any detail. There is a theoretical possibility that CFC’s may have an effect but there is no satisfactory proof at this stage, nonetheless CFC usage has been severely curtailed as a precaution.

It will take a very long period of monitoring to decide on the processes that drive the, so called, Ozone Hole.

It’s times like this I remember a statement made by Prof. Mike Pentz when addressing a group of students: - “ 90% of all Scientific Theories and Papers will eventually be disproved, that’s the way it has always been and that’s the way it is likely to remain”.

I’m more worried by man’s inhumanity to man and his stupidity. I know of no theory or law that can cure that.

question : is the ozone created by mankind or was it always there? Just a thought. I often wonder how mankind can say that there is ahole in the ozone when maybe the ozone layer was created through the detonation of all the many bombs that were ever created to kill eachother. and we just resently have developed the technology to even know that there is such thing as ozone layer let alone if it was always there? I wonder why do scientists send so much pollution into space and then blame it on what is being done on the earths surface when going out into space interferes with the universes natural rythems. too many questions and not enough truth. Dont know what and who to believe anymore, as everyone wants to be right instead of happy.

I have far more respect for, and belief in, Science than and the fact that there are actually studies to support the conclusions than I do in the political rhetoric that is substanciated by nothing more than words opinions that are selfserving.

Lets not deny the facts of ecological damage due to man's impact on the planet for our own selfserving purposes.

Lets look at and respect the results of research.

Since the article admits that the gas initially blamed for ozone holes, CFC, has been banned for 20 years it is reasonable to doubt that it is causing damage. Blaming Bromine & Chlorine makes no snense since they are both highly reactive relatively heavy gases far rarer in the Antarctic stratosphere than even round this neighbourhood.

That the article is pushing its own agenda is shown by the fact that it mentions faster melting on Greenland by not the increase in Antarctic ice (90% of the world's supply).

I think this is one of the very many eco-scare stories that get enormous publicity on the day & are disproven with no fuss months later.

Has the production and use of CFCs been banned worldwide or just in developed countries?

Sanny#13: You're right that it will take a long time to confirm the theories of ozone depletion. However, does that necessarily mean that it was wrong to cut back on CFC emissions as a precaution?

Neil#16 (and others): this Wikipedia article covers the measurements of ozone depletion, the theory behind it, and the global response to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

Here's a brief overview:

http://www.junkscience.com/Ozone/ozone_seasonal.htm

Scientists, researchers, and engineers at NASA and NOAA are at the top of their field, and in no way would they jeopardize their careers over a bunch of environmentalist none sense. How many of you here can back your opinion with scientific fact - I mean actual research against the occurrence of ozone depletion. This has not happened over night, it is a process that has been occurring over decades.
Yes, CFCs did cause damage to the ozone, because, Chlorofluorocarbons attach themselves to the O3 molecule, and break it apart. CFCs are one example of such a process.
This is not about the world coming to an end tomorrow either. It is about scientists letting the world know, we need to be aware that this is happening, so we can take preventitive measures to prevent further damage; and rebuild the layer of our atmosphere that protects us from the Sun's rays that are harmful.
just something to think about. thank you.

I remember one of my professor saying: We don't know if the ozone hole was always been there or not. When the scientist shecked the athmosphere in anthartica they have simply find it.

CFC's do not attach themselves to O3. The hypthesis is that a photochemical reaction where ultraviolet light breaks the chlorine atoms off a CFC molecule, and then the free Cl reacts with the O3.

I have searched on and off for years and have been unable to find experimental proof that this reaction has been demonstrated to actually occur, either in a lab or, especially, in the upper stratosphere. It may have been demonstrated, but I can't confirm it. There are all sorts of chemical reactions that can be properly formulated, on paper, but diificult or impossible to physicaly produce.

I think that a major factor in the fervor to ban CFC's was that the profit nargin on the replacement refrigerants is much larger than on good old freon. Also, billions of dollars/pounds/yen were to made retro-fitting or replacing CFC based cooling units.

I apologise for my poor typing in the previous posting. I don't do this very often...

Has anybody heard of a thing called HAARP:)

L#19: I'm not convinced by the "Junk Science" website you point to.

Firstly, I don't find his arguments compelling (in fact, I find it hard to discern a coherent argument at all). Which of the points he makes convinces you that the prevailing view on ozone depletion is wrong?

Secondly, the analysis isn't peer reviewed. This doesn't make it wrong, but it would have to come from a very authoritative source in order for me to trust it.

Thirdly, it doesn't. The site is run by Steve Milloy, a Fox journalist and (industry funded) political lobbyist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Milloy

I've looked elsewhere, and there are some interesting arguments surrounding ozone depletion. The NASA website includes a well-balanced (if rather dated) discussion on some of the issues of controversy:
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/Ozone/controversy...

Sanny - are you suggesting the Nobel laureates who issued the "World Scientists' Warning To Humanity" in 1992 are ignorant, aka flat-earthers ?
http://deoxy.org/sciwarn.htm
How ridiculous that the passengers of a car hurtling towards the brink, are arguing over which over which seat they want to sit in! Theres a hole - why argue about who caused it - just avoid it and youll live longer.
The simple answer is, HIT THE BRAKES !
Hopefully theres time to develop alternative technologies. Why is everyone in such a hurry to destroy the biosphere ?

As to the cost of cleaning up the eco damage, and preventing more damage - the world in 2005 spent 1.04 trillion dollars on armaments!

Thats one thousand times one billion (10 to the 12th power .

Talk about waste. Just keep thinking how right you think you are, and another trillion will be spent to keep humanity fighting to the death. Is there any wonder that governments dont give a s***e about the ecosystem?

Scotsman, you moved to the Greenland melting from the Antarctic ozone hole with no segue. Allow me to give you some ideas that will allow a substantial transition between the topics:

There is online a continuing discussion between an editor of Scientific American and SciAm's readers who send in their facts seeming to discount the theory of global warming due to CO2 concentration. Mentioned was stratospheric cooling. It seems that one major peer-reviewed article--no, wait, sorry--"study" by an aged University--no, wait, sorry,--think tank, made a lot of the fact that above Antarctica the stratosphere is cooling, meaning that surely the overall atmosphere is not warming!

If the "study" by the thinktank were serious science, it would have noted that there are CO2 warming theories which show the troposphere warming while the stratosphere cools. Well, I only care about the heat of the troposphere, where most people and the plants and animals that provide their livelihood live. Wait a minute, as the Scotsman tells me, it turns out I do also care about the stratosphere, as a colder one can increase my chance of getting skin cancer. So global warming is not only altering ecology by changing the temperature, but by increasing UV light.

It just gets better and better. But it's well worth not to be forced to promote the use of better made, more efficient, and ultimately, because of that, more powerful devices. It's worth spreading disease and coping with incredibly hot summers as long as we are not forced to increase efficiency, which will guarantee some sort of long term growth to the economy!!!

Clearly, the CO2 warming theory is pushed upon us by communist socialists hippies who would like to finally get rid of industrialized society, and by scientists, who desire my tax money in the form of grants. (All those scientis, you know, they all got into science for the big money. What are we going to do with them?? None

Yes, my above post is laced with sarcasm. Scientists do not get into science for the money. CO2 warming is not hoisted upon is by anyone, but by reality, by God Himself. If you are an oil executive, you may not find that fair.

I am sure we will be fine, because I believe in a graceful Creator who will ameliorate the effects of our abuse of His creation. But I think if we don't do *something*, curbing our CO2 production to some reasonable degree, His grace will be less. Trust me. Ever prayed for help before a test you hardly studied for? Ever prayed before a test you didn't study for at all? I'm sure in both instances you were helped, but in the latter the help wasn't help enough to get you an outstanding mark.

In any case, the curbing of CO2 production will help the economy and decrease oil-augmented tensions the world over! Global warming skepticism is put upon us by the old energy industry and those they have unfortunately fooled!

I'm confused. If ozone is a "greenhouse gas", then why is everyone worried that "there's a hole"? Espeically over the pole, where the "melting ice will flood the world"...

Spartacus - let's face it you BELIEVE and so no facts are needed.

L#31: I didn't know much about ozone depletion before reading this article, but it sparked off an interest, and so I read up on it yesterday. The best source I found was this FAQ - a bit dated, and rather detailed and technical, but that's the kind of argument that appeals to me:
http://www.cs.uu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/ozone-depletion/.html

I admit that I do have a bias for believing statements put forward by credible, authoritative sources. The BMA says that smoking causes lung cancer, and I believe them. NASA claim they put a probe on Mars and I believe that too. However, I'm ready to change my opinion when faced with persuasive evidence from a reliable source.

The judgement on what is a reliable source is subjective. For me, it doesn't extend to comments made on the Scotsman website, which is why I asked you to back up your claims.

I had thought, given your strong views against CFC reduction, that you might have access to credible information that challenges the consensus. However, the web site you pointed to doesn't persuade me, for the reasons I set out above.

I'm still ready to be persuaded - can you explain to me why you accept the Junk Science website as a reliable source of information, and which argument convinces you that the international effort to fight ozone depletion is a "bogus scare story"?

Charles (30) no the ozone whole has nothing directly to do with global warming, it is an entirely separate scare. Originaly it was thought tha CFCs (the gas previously in aerosls) might be destroying ozone which blocks radiation. When somebody looked at the sky over Antractica they found there was less ozone than elsewhere & this was taken as proof of the effect. The "environmental" movement hyped the scare promising us that the whole would keep growing & uncover the whole world if we didn't ban CFCs & that it would take 50 years to even slow it. So we banned them & quite coincidentally Mount Erebus in Antarctica stopped pumping out millions of tons of sulphur, & the hole immediately started closing.

The effect in the article is almost certainly a minor blip which is being used to create a whole new scare story. This is the only point of similarity to global warming (also to Y2k, the global ice age, passive smoking, DDT, nuclear power etc etc).

Neil#33: As I understand it, the idea that volcanoes are responsible for ozone depletion has been widely rejected. For example, see the link below:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/volcano.html

I had a look at your website; "scientific progress embodies the best of the human spirit" - stirring words.

Given your faith in science, I assume you have some sound scientific evidence to back up your claim that the ozone hole was caused by Mount Erebus, in contradiction to the view of established scientists like the US Environmental Protection Agency. I'd very glad to see it.

Bryan#29 why are you so sure we will be fine because of love of God? I'm not Christian, but isn't in Bible something about... what they call it... Armageddon?

35.Rtq. I guess you're right about that one. I am just extrapolating from my very fortunate personal experience.

What I hope is that Christians will quit supporting an imprudent policy which could contribute to the end of the current age. I sometimes think there are some who see events as unchangeable by themselves. On one hand, you see Christians further into politics then ever, on the other, you sense that many totally abdicate their democratic power.

The world sees that the church has a great deal of sway in this country, and it is that way. So when we give up on an issue, the world sees Christians giving up on an issue. Whether it's this issue, saving creation for our children, or others such as supporting our social system which attempts to save lost children and the mentally ill as best it can. It is not the time for Christians to be fatalistic. The first Cardinal virtue is prudence, which is using your intelligence to the fullest. Loving God with everything includes thinking and analyzing in addition to being guided. There are dry spells when it seems all you have is your knowledge of Him, so you'd better hope you have your natural abilities honed at that point!

Hrm, I digress...

Actually Spartacus (34) if you reread my post you will see that I did not express certainty that it was all volcanos which is why I used the word "coincidentally" (You would be right if you thought I thought this an unlikely coincidence but then you would only have noticed this if it is indeed a highly improbable coincidence.

Your debunking link bases its theory that Mt Erbus cannot be in any way responsible on the claim that HGl form it cannot rise a few kilometres into the stratoshpere whereas the entire ozone hole theory is based on the claim that CFCs (a heavy molecule) produced in the northern hemisphere can easily move to the stratosphere & to the South Pole.

Do you spot the discrepancy?

Neil#37: Coincidentally, the myth that CFCs are too heavy to rise into the ozone layer is also also dealt with on the same website:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/heavier.html

As the article says ...

"Thousands of measurements over several decades have firmly proven the existence of these heavier-than-air molecules in the ozone layer."

As I said earlier, the best summary I've seen of the science of ozone depletion is this rather dated FAQ:
http://www.cs.uu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/ozone-depletion/.html

You might want to read this through before responding, since it deals with quite a few other common misconceptions.

I'd appreciate it if anyone could point me to a more up-to-date source, or a credible source which contradicts these arguments.

For a less hysterical view see http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/ozone/ozonenobel.html
The point about weight of CFC molecules & HCl ones, which you did not answer, is that the same laws of physics apply to both.

The Luddite mob cannot be taken seriously if they say those laws allow CFCs to mix across the world but do not apply to HCl moving 10 kilometres.

One or the other.

Neil#39: My apologies - I'd misunderstood your point.

The main reason HCl doesn't make it to the ozone layer in significant quantities is because it is water soluble, while CFCs are not. For example, see paragraph 3 in the article below:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/volcano.html

Fred Singer does make some interesting points, and some of them are discussed on this site:
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/Ozone/controversy...

However, all of the material I can find is rather out of date, and the discussion may have moved on. Can anyone point me towards a more up-to-date site?

Thanks Spartacus a useful link. It is clear that this is not fully proven either way. At the time I accepted the ozone story. So did Mrs Thatcher, who being a chemist understood it, indeed she was probably more influential than anybody in producing the ban.

However I believe that the environmental lobby did overegg the original case & doubt if anything serious is going to follow from the current report.