Also, CFCs are not removed from the atmosphere until they are broken apart by upper-atmosphere UV radiation whereas natural chlorine is much more readily absorbed by water in the atmosphere. Finally, CFCs have an atmospheric lifetime of 50-200+ years, so they accumulate whereas the natural chlorine cycle is not cumulative.
You are so wrong! …and still you think you are right because you got your information from the NOAA, and the rest of people active in the web, pushing this hoax to unbelievable levels. Unfortunately, my references are hard to get: you must get the scientific papers published in science journals, and that is a hard task, indeed. But, if you try hard enough, you can get the information: try the US Library of Congress, for instance. I am luck to have a cousin of mine working there as the head of the Latin American Department (for more than 30 years) so every time I need that kind of information I ask her for such a favor.
In the case of removal from the atmosphere, there are many studies performed by many scientists, but one of the most important is the one carried by M.A.K. Khalil and R.A. Rasmussen, “The Potential of Soils as Sinks of Chlorofluorocarbons and Other Man-Made Chlorocarbons”, in Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 16, (July 1989), when working out of the Institute of Atmospheric Sciences at the Oregon Graduate Center, said in their report that “their measurements showed amazingly rapid removal of chlorocarbons by the soils and other constituents of the termite mounds. The soils depleted methylchloroform (CH3CCl3) and carbon tetrachloride (CCl3) by about 25 percent and more than 50 percent, respectively. According to their paper “<I>Such large changes cannot be explained by the slowness of the processes that transport these chemicals into the soil of the termite mounds or soils in general… It can only be a result of either adsorption in the soil or removal by heterogeneous or biological processes”</I> (page 680). What makes the whole subject suspicious is that <b>several scientists interested in pursuing this line of research had their request for funding rejected.</b> However, since 1989 (time of the study) this fact was thoroughly investigated and proved beyond doubt: soils and bacteria remove CFC from the atmosphere.
Moreover, other studies proved that the main sink for CFCs are the oceans, something quite logical, as CFCs are heavier than air and they have a strong tendency to sink to lower places. As demonstrated by J.L. Bullister, in “<I>Chlorofluorocarbons as Time-Dependant Tracers in the Ocean”</I>, in Oceanography, (November 1989), have a graph (I would have to scan it and upload to our website to post it here –I will do it, though, just need some time) where we can see more than 2,000 samples of CFCs found at different depths (up to 4,000 meters deep) in varying concentrations –much higher than the concentrations found in the stratosphere. So the question arise: If CFCs are destroying the ozone layer in the stratosphere, as the depletionists claim, then what are these CFCs doing at the bottom of the ocean? (By the way: J.L. Bullister works for the NOAA. Would you believe him?)
If you really want to make a serious research on this matter, I provide below a list of references (alas, not URLs)where you might find the scientific facts:
(1) Brockman, Fred, et al., 1989, “Isolation and Characterization of Quinoline Degrading Bacteria from Subsurface Sediments,” <I>Applied & Environmental Microbiology</I>, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 1029-1032.
(2) John L. Bullister, 1989, “Chlorofluorocarbons as time dependant tracers in the ocean,” <I>Oceanography</I>, (November), pp. 12-17.
(3) P. Fabian, R. Borchers, G. Gomer, et al., 1984, @The Vertical Distribution of Halocarbons in the Stratosphere”, in <I>“Atmospheric Ozone”</I>, Proceedings of the Quadrennial Ozone Symposium, Sept. 1984,
(4) P. Fabian, R. Borchers, S.A. Penkett, et al., 1981, “Halocarbons in the Stratosphere”, in <I>“Nature”</I>, *Dec. 24( pp. 733.735.
(5) Aslam Khalil and R.A. Rasmussen, M.Y. Wang, et al., “Emission of Trace Gases from Chinese Rice Fields and Biogas Generators> CH2, N2O, CO, H2 Chlorocarbons and Hydrocarbons”, <I>Chemosphere</I>, Vol. 20, No. ½, pp. 207/2026.
(6) Derek Lovely and Joan Woodward, 1990, “Consumption of Freon F-11 and F-12 in Methane-Producing Aquatic Sediments”, paper presented at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union, San Francisco, Calif., (Dec. 3-7, 1990)
I have read all these papers, (and about a couple of thousand more) that have convinced me that there is no scientific base for the ozone depletion theory. I have read also the same amount of papers by the “depletionists”, and have a severe lack of scientific methodology, wild assumptions, and, quite often, shameless lies and distortion of facts, data manipulation, wrong statistical procedures, etc.
<i>If you accept that, </i> (that CFCs are much heavier than air so they cannot go high in the stratosphere) <i>then there would be no stratospheric ozone layer and we should all be breathing ozone (see this). Or, using your previous statements, all the ozone would be at our feet. </i>
Why? I do not get your reasoning. Ozone is heavier than air so it must go down? It does go down, indeed, but it is instantly replaced by new ozone created by the splitting of oxygen molecules. And that is one of the reasons why the ozone layer cannot be depleted: the rate of reposition is much higher than the rate of removal or destruction. The proof is just under your nose: the replenishment of ozone in the Antarctic Hole starts when the first UV rays hit the stratosphere in early spring. If the chlorine atoms were so effective in destroying the ozone forming the hole, why don’t they slow down the replenishment? We could assume that replenishing a 60% reduction of the layer would take more time than replenishing a 15% reduction, isn’t it? That is, if a 15% depletion replenishes by late October, a 60% reduction will replenish around late November. But surprisingly, the hole closes every year by the same date, give or take a couple of days. And this tells us that, <b>if chlorine cannot delay the replenishment of ozone, then it was not the cause of its destruction.</b>
If you ignore the variations due to sunspot activity, what is the overall trend in ozone levels over a long period of time (you choose the timescale)? That is more germane to this discussion.
My timescale would be 30 years. The same span referred to by Dra. Victoria Tafuri, who’s been in charge of measuring ozone at the Villa Ortuzar national Observatory in Buenos Aires, who has stated many times <i>“We have been measuring the ozone layer for the last 30 years</i> (also in Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, the southernmost city in the world) <i>and have not found any decrease in ozone levels --other than natural seasonal variations.” </i>
The NOAA website you provided gave valuable information –on how people can lie when they have an agenda to push. One topic was:
<blockquote>
<b>When Did the Antarctic Ozone Hole First Appear? </b>
<i>The springtime Antarctic ozone hole is a new phenomenon <b>that appeared in the early 1980s. </b> The observed average amount of ozone during September, October, and November over the British Antarctic Survey station at Halley, Antarctica, first revealed notable decreases in the early 1980s, compared with the preceding data obtained starting in 1957. </i>
</blockquote>
Which, of course, <b>is a shameless lie</b>. As most people know, the infamous ozone hole was noticed, simultaneously, by British scientist George Dobson, and by the French scientists at the Dumont D’Urville scientific station (at the other side of Antarctica), when they discovered such low levels of stratospheric ozone that they thought the instruments were at fault.
You should try to get George Dobson’s great book, published in 1968 by Oxford University Press, “Exploring the Atmosphere”, and red Chapter 6, where you will find a beautiful graph: Figure 6.2 <B>ANNUAL VARIATION OF TOTAL OZONE FOR EACH 10 DEGREES OF LATITUDE</B> where is clearly shown the “normal” average ozone levels during different months, and different latitudes. This graph is for the northern hemisphere, but the ozone levels vary with the seasons, and we can see that ozone levels are quite low in winter and spring and recover during summer and fall (as in the southern hemisphere). The depletionists try to ignore this historic fact: Dobson and the French were the ones who discovered the “hole” back in 1957, and this show that the hole has a natural (dynamic) cause, and has nothing to do with chemistry.
Again the NOAA page said: <i>Stratospheric ozone depletion, caused by increasing concentrations of human-produced chemicals, has increased since the 1980s. The springtime loss in Antarctica is the largest depletion. Currently, in <b>nonpolar regions, the ozone layer has been depleted up to several percent compared with that of two decades ago. </b></i> But, as Dra. Tafuri measurements in Buenos Aires and Ushuaia show, this NOAA’s statement is <b>another shameless lie</b>.
But what do they care? Nobody believes what the skeptics say. People believe what’s in the web, in fancy websites. Science is absent. Nobody care to read thousand of scientific peer-reviewed papers that deny any loss in ozone worldwide. So the issue has become more a case of religious faith instead of a scientific issue.
So sunspots cause fluctuations in the ozone levels? Why would that be unexpected? Sunspots would increase solar radiation which, in turn, would have to be absorbed by the ozone layer and, thus, temporarily reduce its concentration.
Actually, UV radiation is absorbed by oxygen and nitrogen, as I told you in a previous post. 21% and 78%, respectively, of the atmosphere. Highly stable gases, (double bonded, you know…) Ozone is only 0,000003% (three millionth percent, highly unstable –high quantic energy-- low absorbing capacity). So ozone levels all over the world –also in the Poles—are influenced by many dynamic (physical) factors as the sun, the Quasi Biennial Oscillation (stratospheric winds at the Equator), the uplift of oxygen during the Antarctic winter, the self destruction by ozone during the dark six-month polar night and no formation of new ozone, due to the absence of sun rays, etc, etc…
I got tired, so I rest my case. Please forgive any typos, I am too tired to check the whole post…
