HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---------------------------
UNITE! Info #166en: 5/8 The "ozone hole" terror hoax
[Posted: 20.03.02]
[Continued from part 4/8]
12. NOW HOW DID THE GLOBAL OZONE
LAYER FARE IN THE 1980S?
The "ozone depletion" scare propaganda, as already seen in
part above, was extremely intensive in 1987-1992. One trick
it employed, apart from sheer fantasy, was the choosing of
"suitable" starting years for its finding a "depletion" over
a certain longer period, such as the one of "3% between 1969
and 1987" claimed by the so-called Ozone Trend Panel in 1989.
As seen above, such a change would have small effects on hu-
man life, more likely positive than negative ones too, if it
had existed and had continued over some decades. And *if* it
by some chance had turned out both to be mainly bad and to be
caused by CFCs, then it could at some point, say in 2050, be
brought to stop before it could later double, by a then *jus-
tified* move away from CFC use.
And on the claimed "trend" "due to CFCs", Maduro and Schauer-
hammer pointed out (p. 77):
"The starting date chosen by the Ozone Trends Panel
is 1969. Since global ozone data exist as far back
as the 1930s, why begin analysis in 1969? As noted by
S. Fred Singer and others, 1969-1985 is 17 years,
five years short of the two full solar cycles (11
years to a cycle), which is one of the most important
long-term influences on ozone.
Another important period the panel ignores is the
worldwide ozone minimum of 1958-1962. The panel's
analysis starts in a year when the thickness of the
ozone layer was reaching a maximum, following the
very deep minimum observed in 1962. The cycle reached
its maximum ozone layer thickness in 1969 to 1970,
as shown by Figure 3.2 [not shown here - RM]; from
there, there was only one way to go - down to a new
minimum.
Therefore, the choice of years picked by the Ozone
Trends Panel in and of itself would ensure that there
would be a long-term reduction of the ozone layer
thickness observable in the data. If the panel had
picked a different 17-year range, say 1962 to 1979,
the figures would have shown an actual *increase* in
the thickness of the ozone layer!
The year 1962 is particularly important because the
ozone layer then was apparently even thinner than it
is today. Of course, at that time, CFCs were not in
widespread use and therefore could not be blamed as
the culprits for the depletion."
Apart from that trick with the choice of starting point, the
great uncertainty of such a "finding" as "3% depletion over
17 years" was pointed to by S. Fred Singer in an article in
the National Review (USA) on 30.06.1989:
"After subtracting all the natural variations they"
(the Ozone Trends Panel) "could think of - some of
them as large as 50 per cent within a few months, at
a given station - they extracted a statistical de-
crease of 0.2 per cent per year over the last 17
years. Making these corrections is very difficult and
very technical and very uncertain - especially when
the natural variations are a hundred times larger
than the alleged steady change".
Hugh Ellsaesser, likewise later quoted on this in Maduro's
and Schauerhammer's 1992 book, on his part found it likely
that there *had* been a certain decline in the 1970s and
1980s but said, at the August 1990 conference of the Atmo-
spheric and Geophysical Sciences Division of Livermore Natio-
nal Laboratory, USA:
"While it is true that the globally averaged depth of
the ozone layer appears to have declined some 3 to 5
percent over the past 15 to 20 years, the level today
appears to be higher than it was back in 1962.
There are at least five papers in the scientific li-
terature reporting 4.3 to 11 percent increase in the
depth of the ozone layer from 1962 until the early
1972s. ... These numbers are up to twice as large as
the declines that have been reported in recent years
[pp. 5-6]."
13. A "1980S OZONE DEPLETION" "DUE TO CFCS ETC"?
Parson, in his 1997 "more advanced" swindle "FAQ", asks
whether an ozone depletion is taking place "also" at middle
latitudes (after saying that there was "no question" that a
such had occurred, "in the last 15 years" then, over the An-
tarctic - see points 17-18 below). He says that "the answer
seems to be yes, although so far the effects are small",
and:
"After carefully accounting for all of the known na-
tural variations, a net decrease of about 3% per de-
cade for the period 1978-1991 was found."
The starting and ending points here are rather fair (in con-
trast to the abovementioned ones of the Ozone Trends Panel's
in 1989) in relation to the 11-year sunspot cycle, which had
maxima both around 1979 and around 1990 - the latter one of
the smaller kind, it may be added, but this probably matters
little.
On the abovementioned particularly low global ozone levels
around 1962, long before they could possibly have been in-
fluenced by CFCs etc, Parson too - not unsurprisingly - has
nothing at all to say. He enlarges on the more recent "de-
crease found":
"This is a global average over latitudes from 66 de-
grees S to 66 degrees N (i.e. the arctic and antarc-
tic are excluded in calculating the average). The de-
pletion increases with latitude, and is somewhat lar-
ger in the Southern Hemisphere. Over the US, Europe
and Australia 4% per decade is typical; on the other
hand there was no significant ozone loss in the tro-
pics during this period. (See, however, [Hofmann et
al. 1996] for more recent trends which appear to show
a decline in some tropical stations.) The depletion
is larger in the winter months, smaller in the sum-
mer. [Stolarski et al.] [WMO 1994]"
Parson does add:
"It should be noted that one high-latitude ground
station (Troms� in Norway) has found no long-term
change in total ozone change between 1939 and 1989.
[Larsen and Henriksen] [Henriksen et al. 1992] The
reason for the discrepancy is not known. [WMO 1994]"
On this particularly long-term Norwegian study, more below.
A 3% ozone depletion per decade, such as the one Parson said
had "been found", which would have started in 1980 and then
had continued in later decades too, would result in one of
20% in 2050, and one of 4% per decade would result in a de-
pletion of 25% in 2050 - changes still rather irrelevant and,
if anything, favourable, as to their effects on human life.
By way of "evidence" that this purported trend in the period
1978-1991 was "caused by CFCs", Parson has nothing to offer,
only saying that:
"That's the majority opinion, although it's not a
universal opinion. The present trends are too small
and the atmospheric chemistry and dynamics too com-
plicated to allow a watertight case to be made (as
*has* been made for the far larger, but localized,
depletion in the Antarctic Ozone hole..." (See un-
der 17-18 below.)
The above mentioned 1998 "Scientific Assessment of Ozone De-
pletion" by the WMO, its "Ozone Report No. 44", published and
put on the Internet in March-April 1999, said that "the link
between the long-term build-up of chlorine and the decline of
ozone in the upper stratosphere" had been "firmly estab-
lished". But this was only "based on" the following:
"Model predictions based on the observed build-up of
stratospheric chlorine in the upper stratosphere indi-
cate a depletion of ozone that is in good quantita-
tive agreement with the altitude and latitude depen-
dence of the measured ozone decline during the past
several decades...".
That is, computer models had said that with so and so much
chlorine present at those and those altitudes and latitudes,
there would be these and these ozone depletions, and "deple-
tions of approximately the same sizes had been found" in the
various cases too. A certain correlation of this kind still
is no proof that the one thing causes the other. The WMO only
said "link" too, not "cause".
Was there such a change trend in the 1980s as that maintained
by Parson in 1997, and also by the WMO in 1998, and if so,
was it caused by CFC (etc)?
An investigation published in 1991 (not mentioned by Parson)
said that there *was* such a trend, but *not* caused by CFCs.
Robert J. Bidinotto (see intro note), a journalist in the USA
who wrote, in 1994, that he had done a six-month investiga-
tion of the "ozone depletion" question and controversy, com-
piled a great deal of scientific literature on the subject
and interviewed dozens of the top scientists representing all
sides of the controversy, and had come to the conclusion that
"No, CFCs aren't going to destroy our ozone layer and create
any cancer epidemic" (he also published a book, "The Green
Machine"), has this to say on that 1991 investigation:
"Dr. Linwood Callis of NASA led an agency investiga-
tion of the causes of ozone fluctuations during the
1980s. As he told me: 'The overwhelming portion of
the ozone depletion in the 1980s was due to natural
causes', and the effect of CFCs 'was really quite
small - less than one-half of one percent'.
(His paper 'Ozone Depletion in the High Latitude
Lower Stratosphere 1979-1990' appeared in the *Jour-
nal of Geophysical Research*, Vol. 96, No. D2, Feb.
20, 1991, pp. 2921-2937.) Callis went on to say that
he thought that scientists blaming CFCs for ozone de-
pletion were being 'less than honest'."
And on the possible causes for such a relatively long-term
ozone levels trend, Maduro and Schauerhammer wrote, pp. 78-9:
"Why was there greater global depletion of ozone in
1962 than today? Writing in the November 1986 issue
of *Geophysical Research Letters*, Richard Rood, from
NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, points out that
dynamical effects may be the causative factor:
'The presence of the 1960's minimum suggests that en-
hanced chlorine levels [in the stratosphere, suppo-
sedly from CFCs reaching it and then gradually broken
down - RM] are not required to produce changes in
global total ozone similar in magnitude to the cur-
rent reduction. Total ozone variations on an annual
time scale are largely determined by transport. A
quasi-biennial oscillation [see also 06 and 11 above
- RM] is obvious. ... The distinct presence of minima
at stations in the Western Pacific is suggestive of
El Ni�o effects.' [p. 1246]". (On the El Ni�o oscil-
lation in parts of the Pacific, see also Info #165en
or a comprehensive treatment at www.john-daly.com.)
And further, citing that Norwegian longer-term study whose
"discrepancy with" the "findings" of some others Parson could
not explain (Maduro and Schauenhammer, 1992, pp. 79-80):
"In a January 1990 paper in *Nature* magazine, Norwe-
gian scientists S�ren Larsen and Thormod Henriksen
analyze Arctic ozone layer data going back to 1935.
(Figure 3.3 [not shown here - RM]). They conclude:
'The data from long-term ozone measurements reveal
periods of several years with a negative trend [de-
crease] and other periods with a positive trend [in-
crease]. The combined results up to 1989 give no evi-
dence for a long-time negative trend of the Arctic
ozone layer. ...
[On the particular meteorological conditions over
the Arctic and, even more so, over the Antarctic,
see point 17 below. - RM]
[The data for] Oslo and Troms� show that the ozone
layer over Scandinavia has been above normal (or ave-
rage) during the past three years. Because of good
correlations with the data from other stations, this
conclusion may be valid for the whole Arctic region.
...' [p. 124]
Larsen and Henriksen then raise the same critical
point raised by Singer:
'The figures show the importance of defining the
starting point and endpoint when describing trends.
the data indicate a positive trend for ozone (in all
seasons) in the period 1983-1989 (the past six
years). On the other hand, no particular trend can be
claimed for the past 10 years.' (p. 124).
That is, the thickness of the ozone layer undergoes
natural fluctations, and one can show an increase or
a decrease, depending on which years are chosen as
starting and ending points (Figure 3.3 [not shown
here - RM]). Nevertheless, they emphasize, *overall,
there is no indication of any ozone depletion*.
As Larsen and Henriksen put it:
'These data indicate that anthropogenic gases such as
CFCs have, up to the summer of 1989, had a negligible
influence on the Arctic ozone layer. The general ba-
lance between formation and destruction of ozone has
not changed, at least not to an extent that is appa-
rent in the long-term observations.' (p. 124).
Larsen, it should be noted, was a student of Gordon
Dobson."
And quite important concerning the whole "global CFC ozone
depletion" "theory" is the fact that, according to that same
"theory", the "mechanism" which purportedly causes the Ant-
arctic "ozone hole" is dependent on a whole number of condi-
tions all existing at the same time and place, 5-6 of them in
fact, including a polar meteorological vortex, such as there
are only over the Antarctic region and (a rather weak one,
because of some mountains) over the Artic region, and some
extremely low temperatures, practically only found over the
Antarctic - the details on this are explained by Parson.
As Bidinotto points out: "If ANY of these ingredients are ab-
sent, you won't have ozone depletion". Absolutely none by
CFCs etc, that is. "And the ONLY place that has them all is
Antarctica." At the very most, any possible ozone depletion
which there might be, due to these substances, takes place in
that region only, and at a certain point in time each year,
in September-October, clearly a local phenomenon, if it
exists at all, with only a small significance, if any, to the
global ozone level situation. (More on this under 17 below.)
Clearly, the whole "theory" of a 1980s global ozone depletion
"due to the use of CFCs and similar substances" is *pure ho-
kum*, to use Bidinotto's term for the "depletion theory" as
a whole. It's a hoax, perpetrated out of some very fanatical
arch-reactionary motives.
14. WHAT WAS THE OZONE SITUATION IN THE 1990S?
- FACTS VERSUS "DEPLETION" HOAX UP TO 1998 -
If there was a global ozone depletion trend in the 1980s
(which there perhaps was) and it was due to CFCs etc (which
were certainly not, to any extent to speak of, the cause of
such a trend, if there was one), would it, according to the
"CFC ozone depletion" propagandists, be smaller in the 1990s?
No, it would not, said the WMO in its 1998 "Scientific As-
sessment", the "WMO Ozone Report No. 44.". More precisely:
"The combined abundance of stratospheric chlorine and
bromine is expected to peak before the year 2000. The
delay in this peak in the stratosphere compared with
the lower atmosphere reflects the average time re-
quired for surface emissions to reach the lower stra-
tosphere. The observations of key chlorine compounds
in the stratosphere up through the present show the
expected slower rate of increase and show that the
peak had not occurred at the time of the most recent
observations that were analyzed for this Assessment."
And:
"Based on past emissions of ozone-depleting substan-
ces and a projection of the maximum allowances under
the Montreal Protocol into the future, the maximum
ozone depletion is estimated to lie within the cur-
rent decade or the next two decades, but its identi-
fication and the evidence for the recovery of the
ozone layer lie still further ahead."
Meaning, even, that "a *bigger* ozone depletion" than in the
1980s "was estimated to" take place in the 1990s. And either
in that decade or in the next two, 2000-2019, "the biggest
ozone depletion ever" would take place, it was "estimated".
The WMO in this said too that it "didn't yet know more pre-
cisely when", in the time up until 2019, that its imagined
"most intensive global ozone depletion ever" would occur.
Only later would the ozone layer "get repaired", according
to these 1998 WMO "estimates":
"The falloff of total chlorine and bromine abundan-
ces in the stratosphere in the next century will be
much slower than the rate of increase observed in
past decades, because of the slow rate at which na-
tural processes remove these compounds from the
stratosphere. The most vulnerable period for ozone
depletion will be extended into the coming decades."
On so-called "repair of the ozone layer", a "FAQ" accompa-
nying that "WMO Ozone Report No. 44" said:
"Repair involves the internationally agreed-upon
Montreal Protocol and its Amendments and Adjustments.
This agreement regulates the production of CFCs and
other ozone-depleting substances. Production of the
most damaging ozone-depleting substances was elimina-
ted, except for a few critical uses, by 1996 in deve-
loped countries and will be eliminated by 2010 in de-
veloping countries."
Now what did that 1998 "Report" say, concerning ozone levels
in the 1990s so far - had they, up until 1997, "lived up",
or rather, "down", to the WMO "expectations" of an "even big-
ger" "ozone depletion, due to CFCs etc" than in the 1980s?
No. Even as early as in 1998, the WMO had to admit that the
results so far were "somewhat disappointing", for the propa-
ganda intentions of those ruling arch-reactionaries whose in-
terests it, concerning such matters as "ozone depletion" and
"climate change", so obediently served and still is serving.
Its "Report" said, under the header "Scientific Evidence":
"*Ozone in the Midlatitudes and Tropics*
As noted in the 1994 Assessment, Northern Hemisphere
midlatitude column ozone decreased markedly in 1992-
1993, following the large enhancement of stratosphe-
ric aerosol caused by the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in
1991. Column ozone has now reached amounts higher
than a linear extrapolation of the pre-Pinatubo trend
would predict.
Between 25 and 60�N, [which is what they mean by
'mid-latitudes' - RM] ozone abundances for 1994-1997
averaged about 4% below 1979 values, although with
large variability, while extrapolation of the pre-
1991 trend would predict current (1997) abundances
about 5.5% below 1979 values.
The corresponding winter/spring and summer/fall los-
ses average about 5.4 and 2.8%, respectively, while a
linear extrapolation would predict 7.6 and 3.4%, res-
pectively.
The average ozone abundances between 25 and 60�S are
currently about 4% (satellite) or 5% (ground) below
1979 values, while the linear extrapolation would
predict 7.2% (both satellite and ground).
...
There are no statistically significant trends in to-
tal ozone in the equatorial regions (20�S to 20�N)."
So, ozone levels *were* below those of 1979, it was said - not
at all strange either, since 1979, that was a sunspot maximum
year, and 1994-1997 was period precisely at a sunspot mini-
mum - "but not as much below them as expected", if that "CFC
ozone depletion" bullshit "theory" were correct.
In fact, as seen under point 11 above, a global ozone level in
1994-1997 some 4% below that of 1979 is just about what would
be caused by the natural 11-year sunspot cycle (if Maduro's
and Schauerhammer's figures on this are correct, at least),
and that's approximately the global difference you get from
that 1998 WMO "Report" too, if you put its figures on the mid-
latitudes (some 4-5% decrease) together with those on the
equatorial regions (or tropics - 0% decrease).
So, the "WMO Ozone Report No. 44" precisely showed that there
had been *no* significiant "ozone depletion due to CFCs" what-
soever between 1979 and 1994-1997.
This was "bad enough", of course, for the arch-reactionary
mendacious propaganda, which had maintained that "the deple-
tion trend" in the 1980s would "become even bigger" in the
1990s. But after 1998, things clearly have gotten "worse
still" for it.
[Continued in part 6/8]
---------------------------
ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: [email protected]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9617B
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
