to you chicken little (tamckissick), I will also reply to/answer the OP's original questions.
"1. It healed itself"
There was nothing to "heal."
"2. Laws were passed to force everyone to use something other than freon since the freon patent was running out and the new stuff was patented by the same company. Cha-ching! Problem solved."
This part is true. Laws were passed. World-wide. And they were passed, not strictly due to the scare-mongering stirred up over a naturally occurring phenomenon (although that was what most lawmakers were fooled into believing was the reason was for doing so), but ultimately for the reason you alluded to concerning the patent. The company you alluded to (which is Dupont BTW) had success once before with the use of scaremongering in eliminating their competition in the nylon business. The competition was hemp and the scaremongering was a movie called "Refer Madness." So, why not try it again?
The problem is that "HCFC's" are essentially the same product but more corrosive to seals causing old systems without upgraded seals to leak it leaving more of it in the air so it is really no boon at all, unless you're a shareholder in Dupont who holds the patent for them.
3. It never was a problem. Just more BS from the Global Warming dolts.
This one is true as well, but it wasn't dolts that originated it. It was scientists who climbed onto the bandwagon once a "possible" connection to "ozone damage" was "made". You see, once a new field of research comes to light, many people jump into the newly created field and apply for grants to study it. These scientists now have a vested interest in maintaining the hoax, because to do otherwise would cause their meal-ticket/funding grants to dry up and they'd be in the unemployment line tomorrow.
And the above are just the industrial/political/scientist self preservation reasons why this hoax has been perpetrated upon us.
Now, to more directly answer you chicken little, here are some actual ozone facts:
"One of the more interesting results on atmospheric ozone which came out of the IGY was the discovery of the peculiar annual variation of ozone at Halley Bay (Fig.16)"(Antarctica). "This particular ozone instrument had been to Shotover to be checked up immediately before leaving England. Moreover, Evans, who took the original observations at Halley Bay, had also been to Shotover to become familiar with the working of the instrument and its maintainence. The annual variation of ozone at Spitzbergen was fairly well known at that time, so, assuming a six months difference, we knew what to expect. However, when the monthly telegrams from Halley Bay began to arrive and were plotted alongside the Spitzbergen curve, the values for September and October 1956 were about 150 units lower than was ex-pected. We naturally thought that Evans had made some large mistake or that, in spite of checking just be-fore leaving England, the instrument had developed some fault. In November the ozone values suddenly jumped to
those expected from the Spitzbergen results. It was not until a year later, when the same type of annual variation was repeated, that we realized that the early results were indeed correct and that Halley Bay showed most interesting difference from other parts of the world. It was clear that the winter vortex over the South Pole was maintained late into the spring and that this kept the ozone values low. When it suddenly broke up in November both the ozone values and the stratosphere temperatures suddenly rose." Source: "Forty Years' Research on Atmospheric Ozone at Oxford: a History" G.M.B. Dobson March 1968/Vol.7, No.3/APPLIED OPTICS pp401-403.
Note the years spoken of for this discovery. It was 1956 and confirmed in 1957 and yet again in 1958 (1958 was not mentioned in text but the chart on pp 401 shows the 1958 data). Dobson was the president of the IOC (International Ozone Commission) in 1957. He recorded these events as a naturally occurring phenomenon. These measurements were made well before the widespread uses of CFC's. They (CFC's) were just coming into their own at that time. Since the "Ozone hole" scaremongers have to use the relative stability of this molecule to justify how a substance 7 times heavier than air can actually even make it to the stratosphere, this would, by the scaremongers own theories place the release of any CFC's that may have led to this drop many years before that. To be sure, that just never happened back in 1957 and it's very doubtful it ever happens with any significance or consequence today as no amount of time is going to "lighten" an in-tact molecule that is 7 times heaver than air.
One other thing to note about the author of the above article, Dobson... Ozone is measured in Fraking DOBSON UNITS!!! The man was no slouch and can't be passed off as a "Denier" (for there was no "Ozone" controversy at that time) and is certainly not a crackpot because again... Ozone is measured in Fraking DOBSON UNITS!!!
One thing Dobson failed to account for in his article though and that is how ozone is actually produced. Ozone is created by sunlight. (Source: Stratospheric Ozone An Electronic Textbook" ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The Stratospheric Ozone Electronic Textbook was funded, developed, written, and edited by members of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center Atmospheric Chemistry and Dynamics Branch)
The relevant text is contained in chapter 1 section 3.
Ozone's creation by sunlight (as acknowledged by NASA which is certainly no ozone denier proven by the above textbook which is loaded with "depletion" horse-hockey and any scientist worth his salt researching ozone, if honest, will admit that it's created by sunlight)is significant here in relationship to the "hole".
Dobson I'm sure knew of the ozone-oxygen cycle and ozone creation at the time of both the publishing of the above paper and the 1956-58 Antarctica results since the cycle was discovered in 1930 by Sydney Chapman (referred to as the "Chapman Cycle"). His failure to include it as part of his explanation of the low readings is something I find odd (although that was just one small section of an overall article and maybe he wasn't shooting for an exhaustive explanation for those particular observations). Therefore I will include it now as part of the explanation of the hole in Antarctica.
The "hole" has ALWAYS "appeared" in the September-October time frame. This is at or near the end of the Antarctic winter. What is absent during the Antarctic winter class?... anyone?? anyone??? That's right Johnny it's fraking sunlight!!! Since we've established that sunlight creates ozone, then one should EXPECT a reduction to be occurring all throughout an Antarctic winter and along with the antarctic vortex Dobson offered up, culminates in the NATURALLY OCCURRING PHENOMENON that Dobson documented in his above article occurring in the years 1956-1958.
Of course this is all academic since just the single eruption of mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed many times more ozone depleting chemicals into the atmosphere in a single eruption than man has ever even produced:
It's just too bad that pesky Dobson had to come along and hold up the sky you claim to be falling, huh chicken little?? And isn't it just a little curious that the widespread panic erupted over the "hole" in 1985, nearly 10 years after Dobsons death and certainly beyond the time most people familiar with his work still had it fresh in their minds?
The truth of the matter is that since ozone is being continuously made by the sun (at the rate of 12% of the entire volume of the earths ozone each day) the only way to truly destroy the ozone layer is to build a big fraking flying fire truck and go put out the sun while simultaneously extracting all the oxygen from the earths atmosphere. For as long as there is sunlight and oxygen, there will always be ozone. And of course, the natural causes for any "depletion" are on the order of exponential magnitudes greater in any given SINGLE YEAR (think volcano's and evaporating seawater) than man has EVER produced in his entire history on the fraking planet...
So, I'm sorry to disappoint you chicken little, the sky is not falling despite your protestations otherwise. It would be far wiser for you to re-direct these environmental passions of yours to more fruitful endeavors, like the cause of liberty and freedom. Because all you're doing with your passion at the moment is helping to further the global cabal's use of these scare-mongering issues to establish more control over us leading to de-facto slavery. And all of this makes your presence here on an overwhelmingly libertarian site like the Daily Paul extremely puzzling.
Paul C. Hanson
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: