Ozone Hole Getting Smaller

It's a scam.

The 'hole' disappears every year for about 8 - 9 months but the powers that be never tell you the other half of the story.

See for yourself.

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/SH.html

Also, note that if you look at the Northern Hemisphere of the planet on the same time lines when the Southern Hemisphere is experiencing a drop in Ozone the Northern Hemisphere is experiencing a surge.

"The metaphors used in the CFC discussion (ozone shield, ozone hole) are not "exact" in the scientific sense. The "ozone hole" is more of a depression, less "a hole in the windshield". The ozone does not disappear through the layer, nor is there a uniform 'thinning' of the ozone layer. However they resonated better with non-scientists and their concerns.^[30] The ozone hole was seen as a "hot issue" and imminent risk^[31] as lay people feared severe personal consequences such skin cancer, cataracts, damage to plants, and reduction of plankton populations in the ocean's photic zone. Not only on the policy level, ozone regulation compared to climate change fared much better in public opinion. Americans voluntarily switched away from aerosol sprays before legislation was enforced, while climate change failed to achieve comparable concern and public action.^[30] The sudden recognition in 1985 that there was a substantial "hole" was widely reported in the press. The especially rapid ozone depletion in Antarctica had previously been dismissed as a measurement error.^[32]Scientific consensus was established after regulation.^[28]"

^"The Antarctic ozone hole is expected to continue for decades. Ozone concentrations in the lower stratosphere over Antarctica will increase by 5–10 percent by 2020 and return to pre-1980 levels by about 2060–2075. "...

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion}

wiki knows all

The animation above illustrates NASA projections of stratospheric ozone concentrations if chlorofluorocarbons(CFC's) had not been banned...

You seem surprized that the northern and southern ozone layers vary in opposition to each other.

From the same website you cited:

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/SH.html

"The depth and area of the ozone hole are primarily governed by the amounts of chlorine and bromine in the Antarctic stratosphere. Very low temperatures are needed to form polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs). Chlorine gases react on the surface of these PSCs to release chlorine into a form that can easily destroy ozone. The chlorine and bromine chemical catalytic reactions that destroy ozone need sunlight. Hence, the ozone hole begins to grow as the sun is rising over Antarctica at the end of the winter.

The ozone hole begins to grow in August and reaches its largest area in depth from the middle of September to early October. In the early years (before 1984) the hole was small because chlorine and bromine levels over Antarctica were low. Year-to-year variations in area and depth are caused by year-to-year variations in temperature. Colder conditions result in a larger area and lower ozone values in the center of the hole."

And for the Northern Hemisphere.

Ozone watch Northern Hemisphere.

Kinda suspicious (darn near natural cycle like) how one hemispheres ozone density goes up over the yearly global average value at the same seasonal time as the other goes down just like how the seasonal temperature of one hemisphere goes over the average global temperature while the other goes below it at different times of the year.

Yeah, have you noticed that the "global climate change" people don't tend to talk about the hole in the ozone layer very often anymore? I think they've come to the point that people think it's "cured" (as the OP's article sort of claims), or more likely, enough info has gotten out to the interested public that shows it really isn't the big problem they made it out to be 30 years ago.

Yea its kind of like that warm air depletion we Northerners experience every fall. Fortunately by burning lots of whatever will burn every time it starts we fix it by spring.

Good thing we do that every year of the planet could slip into a super glacial period in las than a decade!

That's how you spin human influence on weather and climate changes. No one can prove or disprove it therefore by default just assume we are and that the overall cycles are natural.

No one (who's really really dumb) can prove or disprove it therefore by default we just assume we fixing things rather than that the overall cycles loss and gain per season are natural just because they follow a pattern but have variations in the peak and lows from year to year.

you can never stop doing this, it has become a National Security issue, the nation needs your service.

yet another rehash of a thread I just posted to the breakroom

It was a hoax brought about by DUPONT, their patents were running out on the R12 Freon and they had to find a way to protect their profits. What better way than to outlaw R12 and introduce a new product they had new patents on. This ensured their profits would continue for many years to come. (just my opinion based on what took place)

Why would they want to outlaw R-12 if it was so profitable??....and why were they against it? their position on this is a matter of public record.....

"In 1974, responding to public concern about the safety of CFCs,^[62] DuPont promised to stop production of CFCs should they be proven to be harmful to the ozone layer.

In February 1988, U.S. Senator Max Baucus, along with two other Senators, wrote to DuPont reminding the company of its pledge. The Los Angeles Times reported that the letter was "generally regarded as an embarrassment for DuPont, which prides itself on its reputation as an environmentally conscious company."^[61] The company responded with a strongly worded letter that the available evidence did not support a need to dramatically reduce CFC production and calling the proposal "unwarranted and counterproductive".^[63]"

I might add that CFC refrigerants were a small part of their revenue..^.Not much for a 30 billion dollar company...besides they sell the replacements as well.....so it's a wash...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuPont#Chlorofluorocarbons

Solar Eagle, Reread my post and then go back and reread the link you posted, of course they had to have a story that was impossible to argue. The debate still goes on about the Ozone Hole supposedly caused by CFCs.

There would not have been a market for the new Freon's created and patented by DUPONT if many producers came to market without having to pay royalties. The expense for converting all new and old systems to use the replacement product was a rather large chunk of change and the conversion would have never taken place without the governments help, the rather large tax placed on R-12.

Just my opinion,

The new refrigerants were not created until after the mandate to discontinue production and sales of CFC's....Now it's true Dupont was against the banning of CFC's until it got new HCFC's patented as a replacement, which then they flip flopped and came out in support of the action, but they wouldn't have done this unless they were forced to...Dupont didn't have anything to do with the Montreal protocol agreement....Did they come out smelling like a rose, Yes they did, but only because they were willing and able to adapt...

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

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

Looks like another government agency got caught fudging numbers on weather and climate data to make things look like they were getting worse.

USGS Lab manipulated environmental related data for nearly 2 decades .

'They didn't know' of course and no immediate reprimands will be made being it was just numbers N' stuff and not anything important.

Oops.

From the article, you can't tell whether the data was related to weather or climate data. It says uranium and coal. To me it is more likely that some scientist was fudging the data in favor of the coal and uranium companies, because that is how government employees get jobs in the industries they regulate.

The only case that I have heard of in which the federal government exerted pressure regarding climate was that the Bush administration pressured government scientists to suppress data supporting climate change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration

Then there is Florida and North Carolina, but those aren't federal.

If you can document a case in which the government pressured government scientists to sway their data in favor of climate warming, then please post it. Blogs and opinion pieces don't count. I'd need an actual news source.