Yes this is just another communist excuse to de-industrialize the west while communist China grows in industrial & military power.

An excellent article.

It describes a major set of assumptions, where cause and effect was not adequately established.

The graph shows that not even a correlation between: Reduction in Ozone Depleting Substances and Ozone Hole Area could be established.

Don Aitkin is also spot on when he writes "to do with global warming, or what became called ‘climate change’, when warming seemed to have stalled."

Another current issues is: Since the end of the major draught in Southeastern Australia (from early 2000s up to 2011) can we now say with any certainty that the assumed cause (El Nino or global warming) is still valid.

Along the same lines - Many scientists every year say that there will be an El Nino (ocean warming) which Will cause a draught that year. Problems are:

1. no major draught in 2011, 2012 and 2014 has been recorded in NSW/ACT OR

2. how in terms of rainfall and area covered do you record a drought?

3. how do you know if El Nino (warming ocean) is the cause?

AND

4. if scientists get their El Nino predictions wrong for 3 years but they are right in the 4th year - does that prove that their El Nino theory is correct?

The Montreal Protocol on CFCs was possible and could be implemented because the costs of putting it into effect were relatively modest. The same cannot be said for the solutions proposed for global warming.

'Consumption' on the graph is actually production (usage). Don makes a comment about 'concentrations, rather than actual emissions, that are important'. Well, derrrr Don. Anyone with a scientific background could tell you that in any reaction, the concentration of the reagents are important.

Whats completely missing in Watts discussion, is the lag time, widely predicted and acknowledged by all the atmospheric scientists and physicists involved. Just removing the inputs is not going to immediately remove the chemicals from the atmosphere.

Compare the graphs on these sites that have concentration data rather than consumption (emission) data with the ozone hole data presented by Watts.

https://www.environment.gov.au/node/22144
http://www3.epa.gov/ozone/science/indicat/

and a nice summary here:
https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/state-of-the-environment/report-2007/contents/atmosphere_stratospheric_ozone_depletion.html

Contemporaneously contrasting the two sets of data that Watts presents which are secondarily linked with a very long (several decades long) lag time but not directly linked (due to ionic concentrations remaining in the atmosphere for long periods) is a smoke-and-mirrors argument which will only fool the ignorant.

Educate yourself, jeesh.

Hi Don

Don't worry about critics who never learned to write:

"Contemporaneously contrasting the two sets of data that Watts presents which are secondarily linked with a very long (several decades long) lag time but not directly linked (due to ionic concentrations remaining in the atmosphere..."

Poo poo to you plantagenet.

If you cant understand what I was saying, then I will use short easy to understand words.

You can't put two sets of data side by side in time (i.e. contemporaneously) when they are linked by a long lag time (i.e. indirectly) and say they aren't correlated. Only the concentration of ozone depleting substances (ODS) in the atmosphere is linked directly to the size of the ozone hole.

Now, if you can't understand that, then I will have to try and dumb down some more.

Yeah.

Knock ya-self out!

Poida

Bugsy,

It seems that the 'hole' was known in the 1930s, before CFCs were widely manufactured (see the comments to my original post on my website). And one of your diagrams only goes to 2003. I agree with you about concentrations, and made the point myself, though I did pick it up from someone else.

When the ozone hole was discovered, only thirty years ago. It was assumed we were responsible. (on what evidence?) CFCs were blamed, we stopped using them, and the Ozone hole has done what it has probably done for centuries if not since the dawn of time. The Earth system is far too complex for the current crop of "scientists" to understand using models into which they plug the wrong data. The old computer speak term GIGO comes to mind.

Thats a hell of a reference you provided there Don!

"Someone told me..."

LOL

"one of 'my' diagrams only goes back to 2003"... well you could look up more comprehensive data yourself you know, it was just an example.

You really are turning into an old conspiracy theorist aren't you.

And thanks for that enlightening comment poida, you are so much smarter than me.

To quote your comment on knowing about the ozone 'hole' in teh 1930s:
(from your website, Don)

"A correspondent suggests to me that 'The so-called hole in the ozone layer was a well-recognised phenomenon well before fluorocarbons were invented. It affected radio transmissions that were directed around the polar regions and there were monthly charts published to guide radio amateurs transmission (antenna) directions."

You seem to be very credulous when it comes to these things. How were they able to measure ozone in the 1930s and publish charts on it on a monthly basis?

But that is irrelevant because they weren't measuring the 'ozone hole' at all were they?

Your 'correspondent' wouldn't happen to be referring to charts that are commonly published to predict the best radio propagation directions? These are still published and are generally affected from solar activity (sunspots etc), but I haven't heard that the ozone layer massively affects it because its mainly happening in the ionosphere above the ozone layer.

But please let me know when you find something won't you?

Just a squashed Bug on the Window of Life :)

Bugsy,

I'll ask and report if I find out more.

Many years ago I attended a lecture by the late John Daly. In passing he talked about how the thinning of the ozone over the South Pole had been recognised back in the mid 1950s. At the time they noticed that the 'hole' seemed to be getting smaller each year (you can sort of see that in the graphs in the paper from Farmen that Don linked). His point was that they thought it as merely curious and something to be watched. These were the days before scientists had learned to parlay scientific ambiguity into a scare and finally into a career.

From the very outset, there were those who doubted the CFC link. However, there was no constituency who were sufficiently disadvantaged by the proposed bans to fight them - well apart from the general public who would be required to pay more the the same product. But as always, the general public's interests didn't get a look in.

So we have a ban which initially seemed to be working. But now the apparent repair is stalling. At the very least that provides support to those who see the thinning as a natural cyclic phenomena. As I recall, at the time of the ban, we were assured that the start of the repair would be obvious quite soon after 1996 when the developed world would cease all use of CFCs. Recall that there was concern in the NH countries about their athletes being fried at the Sydney Olympics. At the time they were assured that things would be on the repair by then. Now that things aren't working out as planned we're told that they always knew it'd take the better part of 50 years to resolve.

So would a Paris agreement be like the Montreal Protocol? Given the caveat that I doubt there will be a PAris agreement worth the name, if it did happen it would be very much like Montreal - hailed as victory for science, completely against the interests of the general public, and probably completely useless

Thanks, Don, for an illuminating article. It appears that we were duped by the scare-mongrels again, to interfere with legitimate business without just cause.
Since there is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, we can only hope that the lie-fest in Paris is on course for the usual welcome failure.

Bugsy,

My correspondent replies to you statement, as follows:

'Yes, the charts didn't result from ozone measurements but were predicted transmission propagation direction guides as noted. And yes, they are generally affected by solar activity.
My understanding is that the mainstream view is that solar radiation selectively ionises the residual atmospheric gases in the (upper) ionosphere while the solar UV component operates in the lower "ozone layer" to ionise O2 and convert it to O3 (ozone). Solar radiation impacts are maximised across the tangential magnetic polar regions with ionisation results such as auroras and "radio transmission holes" whereas the mainstream view is that the solar impacts are maximised in the tropics and then circulate polewards.
Experience of variable radio transmission "holes" occurring preferentially around polar regions and associated with solar disruption episodes leads to the conclusion that the "hole in the ozone layer" story is effectively a re-definition of existing solar radiation-induced upper atmosphere ionisation events rather than a separate and different phenomenon.
While that is an opinion rather than measured information, recent variations in the "ozone hole" accord with the solar radiation hypothesis better than the "chlorofluorocarbon" hypothesis.'

We know from experiments that chlorine monoxide is formed in the upper atmosphere from the breakdown of CFCs.
We also know that chlorine monoxide catalytically destroys ozone.

So regardless of the trivialities of how much of the antarctic ozone hole is down to CFCs, and what "hole" even means, the Montreal Protocol was a good thing. It has greatly reduced damage to the ozone layer. And because CFCs have a very high global warming potential, it has given us more time to deal with climate change.

As with the ozone hole, some people obsess over the trivialities of global warming, using them as an excuse to do nothing while ignoring the actual effects.

So if a Paris agreement on climate change is a total success, it will be like the Montreal Protocol on CFCs in one very important way: a very long time after the success, many people with a very poor understanding of the subject will be claiming it was unnecessary.

That's a lot of words to say "I made it up", Don.

So credulous, opinion as fact. That's the modern world for ya.

Bugsy, Contemporaneously contrasting the two sets of data that Watts presents which are secondarily linked with a very long (several decades long) lag time but not directly linked (due to ionic concentrations remaining in the atmosphere for long periods) is a smoke-and-mirrors argument which will only fool the ignorant. what a perfect explanation of the scientific fraud involved. Thank you for explaining that left wing cult members have been making it all up as they go along.

Educate yourself, jeesh.

platagenet, good point,

Bugsy again, Now, if you can't understand the most important theory in the article is existential, then I will have to try and dumb down some more. The hole may have always been there, nobody knows, for sure AND it has been decades now or a long lag time.

Jon R, well said,

Bugsy, the hard evidence of wide spread scientific fraud in the radical, extreme, left wing religious cult increases daily. Many former leftists have admitted to it publicly, even written books on it.

mhaze, too true, scientists used to be respected, thanks to the left, scientists are hated now.

Leo Lane, well said,

Aidan, i think you should be more concerned about the fact that nobody is listening to scientists & academics any more.

Bugsy, leftist deception usually does take a lot of explaining.

Science takes a lot of explaining.

I am very concerned that 'nobody' ( I assume you mean you and your friends) is listening to scientists and academics anymore.

But this is a problem that wasn't created by the 'left'. If the 'big business' conspiracy theory of ozone depletion that Don floated is true, then it was someone else.

You guys are all a bit muddled here. If it's the left, then all the atmospheric physicists and chemists are 'left', and therefore all the climate scientist are 'left'.

But it was big business that argued for the Montreal Protocol because the patents on Freon and other CFCs had expired?

Man, the revision of history is astounding with you guys. Now that science can be attacked you're going full pelt at ANYTHING related to environmental science that seems like a lefty cause.

I see it all the time, it started with climate science, then DDT, the Great Barrier Reef, now the ozone layer.

You guys are unbelievable.

Everyone says we need to put a price on carbon? But why do we need to include some 140 billions in fat cat brokerage fees just to accomplish that?
Because we need to impose a cap is the standard reply!?

That is because national governments have no power to create laws or rules that would accomplish just that? And no courts to impose their laws?

Just how stupid do they think we are out here in mugsville?

A tax and cap paradigm would impose a sliding scale cap if it were wanted and carbon could be taxed at a million dollars a ton?

Now that is what I call sending a message!

However, given the cap is set at today's emission; nobody with a still functioning brain would pay any of it!

It would be a claytons tax only payable when the cap were eventually and progressively lowered, say ten years from now?

And we'd save some 140 billions per, better spent on new carbon free technology; say cheaper than coal thorium reactors?

And all that stands in the way of that is I believe, the screaming fossil fuel industry and their political, paid for servants/investors/devil's disciples, for whom money is God regardless of the annihilation event outcome that threatens us all?

[Evil Incarnate stands to harvest a very large and fiercely willing crop?]

Because thorium reactors are relatively small and able to be built in a factory, then trucked on site, where they consume almost all their fuel, with little waste; that is nonetheless, eminently suitable less toxic, long life space batteries.

All the usual excuses about needing more time are just time wasting money saving excuses! And time wasting we just don't have time for, in either an environmental sense, or on sound (cheaper than coal)economic grounds.

In ten years if they were really pushed, the coal industry could create a clean coal paradigm that simply improved their overall profitability!

However, what really stands in their way, I believe, are vocal shareholders, worried solely about maximised returns, and physically/mentally unable to look at the long term picture!? Rhrosty.

“ people with a very poor understanding of the subject will be claiming it was unnecessary.”
Not true, Aiden. You will be claiming it was necessary, and you have just demonstrated a very incomplete understanding. You know chemical equations, but have about as much understanding of how they apply in practice as the IPCC has about the effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide on global temperature. Virtually none.

Bugsy, Spin takes a lot of spining.

I am very concerned that 'nobody' is listening to scientists and academics any more. You should be, (my sample size is bigger than yours, every job i ever had was a people person job, EG meeting large numbers of people every day, as well as moving in a wide variety of social circles outside work, now retired & doing voluntary work every day in community groups including retired scientists who laugh at what you call science)

But this is a problem that was created by the 'left'. If the 'big business' conspiracy theory of ozone depletion that Don floated is true, then it was the left wing friends of big business.

You Bugsy are all a bit muddled here. If it's the left, then all the atmospheric physicists and chemists are 'left', and therefore all the climate scientist are 'left'.

And it was left wing big business that argued for the Montreal Protocol because the patents on Freon and other CFCs had expired?

Man, the lack of history is astounding with you Bugsy. Now that science can be attacked we are going full pelt at ANYTHING related to environmental science that seems like a lefty cause, with good reason.

I see it all the time, it started with climate science, then DDT, the Great Barrier Reef, now the ozone layer, leftists colluding with big business.

"Wall Street On Trial" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1IL6r_Sizs

"Green Jobs Answer Man" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJcjgAdsS1k

Rhosty, true but the Coal Industry has been paying heaps in tax, royalties, etc which our governments could have invested in scientific research instead of the garbage they wasted it on.

LOL 'moderate'

Nice parody but the "leftists colluding with big business" had me rolling in fits of laughter.

Maybe you should have a chat to Mark Poynter and ask him how much he reckons 'leftists' collude with big business.

You people are very funny. Random irrelevant Youtube videos are funny too.

All in all I would give you a 3/10 for the humor, but the rest is just, well, dumb.

Leftists colluding with big business about the Great Barrier Reef? How does THAT work? Mate you got to work on your consistency. I know you think you're clever, but it just doesn't come across on the internet.

Bugsy, LOL 'friend of the workers'

Nice deflection but the "leftists colluding with big business" had me recognising the hypocrisy of the 100% evil, ruling, left wing elites.

Maybe you should think about international banksters & the 100 richest families on earth gambling on carbon derivatives with money stolen from the 99.99% by 'leftists' who collude with biggest businesses on earth.

You people are very evil.

All in all I would give you a 3/10 for the spin, but the rest is just, well, dumb.

Leftists colluding with big business about carbon derivatives, lowering workers pay in return for bribes? How does THAT work? A, sick. Mate you got to work on your consistency. I know you think you're clever, but it just doesn't come across on the internet or anywhere. in 1788 the gap between rich & poor began narrowing, in 1972 the gap between rich & poor began widening again, thanks to PLY, people like you.

I preferred the humour. This conspiracy nut ranting is getting dull.

The paragon, "pin up" kid, communist agitator of the lefties, Bernie Fraser says;

"there is not a case for shifting to cleaner coal production, instead of a total moratorium on new coal mines.

"The reality is that even with those targets for post-2020 emissions reductions the world is headed for, not two degrees, but for at least a three-degree increase in temperatures, and that has some pretty worrying and harmful consequences," he said.

"None of these changes, these types of policies, are without cost but the costs of not doing these kinds of things and having to contend with a three-degree increase in global warming, or even something bigger than that, those costs are even greater."

We are straying off topic (CFC) but the usual suspects here that can't use logic and intellectual argument always resort to "its a left plot" or similar strategy!

Dear Don,

Perhaps my good fellow you might take the time to put a touch more effort into your articles.

If you had done so you would have undoubtedly found, in very short order as I did, that CFCs hang around in the atmosphere for markedly long periods. The following are mean life times in the atmosphere for each of the major CFCs;

CFC 11 --- 57-105 yrs, Mean 74 yrs

CFC 12 --- 67-333 yrs, Mean 111yrs

CFC 113 --- 136-195yrs

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~martins/isohydro/cfcs.html

The annual mean tropospheric concentration of CFC 11 in the Southern hemisphere peaked at 269.65ppt in 1994 (doubling from 1977). It is now 231.97ppt.

CFC 12 peaked at 541.6ppt in 2003 (doubling from 1978). It is now 521.08ppt.

CFC 113 peaked at 82.67ppt in 1997 (doubling from 1986). It is now 72.56ppt.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/oceans/new_atmCFC.html

While there certainly has been some reduction in concentrations it has been modest at best with the main CFC 12 molecule only falling by around 4%.

All this is entirely consistent with the science and NASA's findings.

So in essence what you have done is taken a shallow prop piece from WUWT, thrown a few insipid phrases around it in an attempt to weaken the case for an accord in Paris.

Please tell me why I and others should not consider this article as lazy, intellectually dishonest, and reflecting poorly on any expectation of academic rigor from you.

Dear Bugsy,

There is a very solid rule I have observed in the AGW debate.

There are those who will respond to the arguments with facts and figures and are prepared to argue with evidence.

Then there are those who avoid rational debate at all cost. This type usually fall into one of these categories; too lazy to do the work, too ignorant to understand anything beyond a platitude, or just plain nuts.

imacentristmoderate has a dash of the first, a good helping of the second, but is primarily a shining example of the last.

No need to take him too seriously.

Bugsy, I would prefer some honesty instead of the cheap, nasty humour. This conspiracy nut ranting is getting dull & ALL i have ever encountered from communists who never do anything other than lie.

Peter King, The paragon, "pin up" kid, communist agitator of the lefties, Bernie Fraser "the bankster" says;

"we need to pay a price on the air we breath & give the cash to banksters, so they can inflate another bubble market for carbon derivatives which will hopefully create a "crisis in capital markets" hopefully bringing down capitalism"

We are straying off topic (CFC) but the usual suspects here that can't use logic and intellectual argument always resort to "it's NOT a left plot" when it is, or similar strategy!

Dear SteeleRedux, Perhaps my good fellow you might take the time to put a touch more effort into your articles.

Please tell me why I and others should not consider this comment as lazy, intellectually dishonest, and reflecting poorly on any expectation of academic rigor from you.

So according to you, right wing academics are lying & big business M is benefiting from those lies. Meanwhile Don says left wing academics are lying & big business B is benefiting from those lies.

Please tell me how middle of the road swinging voters are supposed to tell whether it is left or right academics who are lying? Does past form give us a clue?

History tells us that usury or banksters stealing from the 99.99% has been with us since Jesus played for Jerusalem.

17. Use universities as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of lecturers associations. Put communist propaganda in textbooks.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of editorial writing, policy-making positions.

32. give any socialist centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat] & dominate the psychiatric profession.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Communist

Rusty Reflux:“Then there are those who avoid rational debate at all cost. This type usually fall into one of these categories; too lazy to do the work, too ignorant to understand anything beyond a platitude, or just plain nuts.”
I always refer to you as delusional, but I suppose “plain nuts” will do.
You left out the main category of climate fraud supporters, like yourself, who base their responses on dishonesty.