tools of light

Holes in the Recent Arctic Ozone Hole Story

by DR. TIM BALL on OCTOBER 10, 2011


There are frequent stories of impending doom. If it isn’t new it’s a recycled one, which works because few understood the original story was false. This allows exploiters to take normal events and present them as abnormal. A recent Canadian story identifies a hole in the Arctic ozone. How can this be? Wasn’t the problem identified and resolved with the 1987 international agreement, the Montréal Protocol? A 2003 report says

“The rate at which ozone is being destroyed in the upper stratosphere is slowing, and the levels of ozone-destroying chlorine in that layer of the atmosphere have peaked and are going down”

Trouble is, their science has little to do with natural processes so they’re claims.

Source of the story is a telltale sign of credibility. It’s no surprise the science article titled, “Unprecedented Arctic ozone loss in 2011” appeared in Nature, on October 2, 2011. Nature, was widely involved in the entire climate fiasco. Richard Black of the BBC, didn’t miss the opportunity by reporting,

“Ozone loss over the Arctic this year was so severe that for the first time it could be called an “ozone hole” like the Antarctic one, scientists report.”

Black’s article is problematic because he apparently realizes it contradicts official claims of global warming, climate change and ozone science. For example, he reports,

“But over the last few decades, the winters that are cold have been getting colder.”


“No records for low temperature were set this year, but the air remained at its coldest for an unusually long period of time, and covered an unusually large area.”

Touble is they’re supposed to be getting warmer.

Another sign involves funding. Is it more than coincidence the Canadian government recently announced significant reductions in their ozone program?

“A key source of information about the health of the ozone layer above the Arctic looks set to be choked off. In a year that saw the first genuine ‘ozone hole’ appear in the Northern Hemisphere, atmospheric scientists say they are shocked to learn that Environment Canada, the country’s environment agency, has decided to drastically reduce its ozone science and monitoring programme.”

Announcement of the cutbacks to the ozone program were, not surprisingly, set out in Nature’s sister publication, Naturenews, on September 12, 2011.

Ideally stories have a direct or implied human cause. Black perpetuates this myth with terminology; the phrase “hole ozone” is reference to the claimed human cause Antarctic ozone hole. Incorrect phrases such as “greenhouse effect” and “hole in the ozone” are so entrenched and connected to human causes that they have an aura of accuracy. Earth’s atmosphere does not work like a greenhouse, it’s an incorrect analogy. Similarly, there was no hole in the Antarctic ozone. There was a normal area of thinning, which was still approximately 1/3 of the thickness of the global average. Its ‘discovery’ triggered a major campaign by environmentalists to find a human cause. The process was a forerunner and template for the subsequent campaign to show that human produced CO2 was causing a runaway greenhouse effect. With ozone it was chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) causing ozone depletion, especially over Antarctica, but there was never any proof.

The practice is to ignore natural variability and mechanisms and produce “scientific” evidence for the human impact. There are human impacts, but you can only identify them if you know and understand natural variability. Ozone is created by photo-disassociation, which occurs when ultraviolet (UV) radiation hits and divides oxygen (O2) molecules into single oxygen (O) molecules. These rapidly combine in threes to create ozone (03). It was assumed that UV was constant, which means measured ozone variation had another cause. They blamed CFC’s, without evidence. Subsequently it was shown variation was due to a combination of variation in UV, extremely cold temperatures, formation of polar stratospheric clouds (PSC) and intense atmospheric circulation. To heighten the guilt they said, incorrectly, that CFCs would remain in the atmosphere for decades.

Consider the contradictions between ‘official’ science and this Naturenews statement on the impact of funding loss.

“The blow comes at a crucial time for monitoring efforts. In March, scientists reported that 40% of stratospheric ozone over the Arctic had been destroyed — the highest ozone loss previously measured was 30% in 2005. The record loss was due mainly to exceptionally low temperatures last winter in the Arctic stratosphere, which help to form ice particles at an altitude of around 18–25 kilometres. These particles host the chemical reactions by which long-lived chlorofluorocarbons catalyse the breakdown of ozone.”

The above is presented as abnormal when it’s perfectly normal.

Mainstream media ignored the cold arctic summer, the failure of sea ice to reach predicted low levels, and the ice reforming some three week ahead of average. What caused “exceptionally low temperatures”? The Arctic is supposed to warm the most. Ice particles are the formation of Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSCs), which

“are the medium on which reservoir chlorine compounds are converted into ozone-destroying chlorine radicals.”

But the University of Cambridge says,

“the precise chemistry and details of PSCs are not fully understood… and, “We do not yet fully understand the mechanism for PSC freezing, and this remains one of the largest uncertainties in stratospheric ozone modelling.”

It doesn’t match the certainty of the media report, but that’s the game.

Ozone varies dramatically due to normal causes. No proof exists that CFCs were causing the problem in the ozone layer. Like most environmental scares it was exploitation of fear and lack of understanding. It’s included in the BBC article.

“The ozone layer blocks ultraviolet-B rays from the Sun, which can cause skin cancer and other medical conditions.”

Yes, but why not mention it also produces vitamin D, which is essential to healthy bones and the prevention of scrofula.


No related articles.