Ozone Hole is Back

In the mid-1980’s the world decided to ban CFC chemicals, e.g. Freon, used in refrigerators and other industrial processes, due to the impact those chemicals were having to create a “hole” in the ozone layer over Antarctica. The presence of ozone filters the Sun’s ultraviolet radiation, which is dangerous to people and other life forms on this planet. Banning CFCs was said, as I recall, by scientists to be the only solution to closing the ozone hole. So they were banned and we now have less efficient (e.g. requires more energy and/or less effectiveness) refrigerators.

Apparently, the ozone hole has re-appeared. I was reminded of this by a comment in Jerry Pournelle’s web site where he commented on this. I also came across an undated report by ABC News (USA) “Ozone Hole is Back and Big“.

Is this because the world did not indeed stop using CFC’s to the extent required to stop the hole? There have been rumors of this over the years. Or, are there other causes than CFC’s in making the hole? And if the latter, how come in the mid 1980’s was it protrayed that CFC’s was the only solution? And, how “normal” is the hole as a feature of nature?

What does this teach us about other “there is only one answer” to problems?

Update 21 April: Our Clouded Hills replies with what some could infer are ad hominem comments. But he also points out some science which I will take note of. I think he forgets that I’m the guy who sent him Bishop Hill’s book when it was clear he was writing blog posts about the book without actually having read it.


5 Responses to Ozone Hole is Back

  1. […] seems to be the story. A guy with a blog read an abc news report from September (I’m not sure what year) and some people seem to be […]

  2. rms says:

    Hole is a hole (if true). Points about “one solution” to problem, and did we really stop using CFC’s still stands.

  3. andyrussell says:

    Hi Rob

    There are no ad homs in my post.

    The ABC report you link to is from 2001 (check the page source).

    I only wrote my post because I was very surprised by how little it seems that BH knows about the ozone hole yet still feels the need to take a pop at the Montreal Protocol.

    My post on the Hockey Stick was not about Montford’s book – it was about the Hockey Stick.

  4. fujirobin says:

    I’m confused – is the ozone hole back or not?

  5. rms says:

    While I linked to a 2001 article (I’m told), I do not that Jerry Pournelle (someone who I highly respect) is writing about how it’s back in his blog. I’ve not had time to research it further. My main interest is thinking about “this is the only solution” topics.

%d bloggers like this: