Talk:Ozone depletion/Archive 2

Merge proposal
There's considerable overlap between ozone depletion and ozone hole, and somebody already deleted ozone depletion theory. So I think a merge is needed.

Let's try to cover the following ideas:
 * 1) ozone's protective role - keeps too much UV from reaching the surface
 * 2) destruction of ozone - by CFC (mostly) but also sunlight, et al.
 * 3) connection of ozone depletion to increased UV at surface and harmful consequences of it

We may or may not choose to keep ozone hole as a separate article, but anything about the three points above should go primarily in another article.

I think we need at least articles, something like:
 * ozone depletion -- research on theory and actual observations of how stratospheric ozone has been going down each year -- no controversy, no politics: just the facts (heavy on peer-reviewed articls)
 * ozone depletion theory -- argument or "theory" relating CFC to ozone loss to UV increase to cancer increase + extent to which this theory has been (a) accepted and/or (b) actually proven (good place for Singer's objections) -- good place to mention Montreal Protocol

Care to have a go, William? --Uncle Ed 15:47, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry Kids already done! :o) Though much work needs to be done cleaning things up and organizing them. I merely moved the "fred singer sections" from both articles together at the bottom of the new merged page. I feel that things still seem to wander randomly in this article....I will let you and William hash the rest of this out. I must say I remain entirely unconvinced that yet another ozone depletion theory page should exist. Any information on the theory of ozone depletion belongs right here, if this necessitates an "non-mainstream theories" section or some such then that can go at the end of this article as well. We're merging these pages for a reason! Consolidation of information about the ozone layer and issues surrounding its reduction/destruction etc.  --Deglr6328 02:38, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Light relief
(William M. Connolley 10:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)) And if all this is too serious, try:

http://community.oceana.org/story/2004/7/1/185446/7154

Connection To Global Warming
The article implies a weak connection between destruction of ozone and global warming. This area could benefit from more discussion.

The article does not address the question of whether ozone depletion could create increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. I wonder if someone could explain the scientific plausibility of the following concept.

Ozone depletion leads to increased intensity of UV rays at earth's surface, much of which is absorbed. The region most affected by increased UV is the region outside of the tropics. This region is mostly ice and liquid water.

This is the region where we see ice melting more rapidly than expected. More importantly, this region is home to the largest concentration of marine algae, which fix CO2 from the atmosphere. Since UV is highly toxic to micro-organisms, one would expect to find that ozone depletion leads to a reduction of marine algae populations. Can someone comment on this?

If there are less stable micro-organism populations to fix our increased CO2 emissions as a result of increased UV,

and If increased UV absorption leads to elevated surface temperatures,

and

If increasing sea surface temperatures lead to lower solubility of CO2 in seawater,

Then is there a stronger connection between ozone depletion and global warming? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.151.251.250 (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Its one planet and we would be foolish to think that it isn't all connected. I would theorize that this will all have irrevocable consquences if not addressed in the near future. The depletion of the Earth's ozone will ultimately reduce its life expectency, lead to poor health for us here and cause "Forced evolution" through un-natural climate changes. 76.5.213.77 (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup
I've just restored the cleanup tag to the page (which I deleted inadvertently this morning!). I agree with W.C. that I may have taken out a bit too much, but the page was in the cleanup list because it has "lots of redundant text / restatement" (see Cleanup list, September 2004). Do we have to have the Montreal Protocol mentioned three times, the biological effects of UV in several paragraphs, and the statement that "chlorine breaks up ozone catalytically" every four or five sentences? I believe the page can be reduced to half its size without loss of content. BTW there's already an ozone-oxygen cycle page. A shorter explanation and maybe a graphical diagram could be more useful. --Pablo D. Flores 21:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 23:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Hmmm... I'm not really sure the cleanup tag is needed, its more of a relic of the merge of ozone hole and ozone depletion I think. Lots of repetition has already been removed.


 * There *is* an ozone-oxygen cycle page but that page itself is marked for cleanup and is very sparse. You could make a case for moving text from the ozone cycle overview section over to there, but is there any point?


 * There is probably room for further improvement, though I don't find the repetition as jarring as you do, and I don't believe the page could be half the size.


 * OK, maybe that was an exaggeration. But I do think that the ozone-oxygen cycle should be moved (and then the main article could have, as it says, just an overview).


 * The text still has a lot of repetition (I can't imagine what it was before!) and the table of contents should be clearer. Also, I'm not sure if the POV disputes above were solved to everyone's satisfaction.


 * I don't want to step on your toes, but let me try this weekend or next week, and then you tell me what you think. --Pablo D. Flores 14:28, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 15:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)) OK. The POV disputes were mostly resolved I think. On a practical level, Ed Poor doesn't edit the climate pages so much anyway. I've archived the old stuff, so newcomers don't feel intimidated by its weight.

Is Ozone Depletion Real?
Do not turn away! This is not a rediculous theory.

The science of ozone (as understood by me):
 * Ozone is created on a regular, consistent basis. UV light hitting oxygen (O²) in the upper atmosphere causes it to become unstable, forming ozone (O³). However, ozone only exists in its unstable state for anywhere between .5 - 10 seconds before breaking down to form the more stable 0²! Then the whole process repeats over again.


 * Also, I have learned that the reason that ozone is thin at the poles is because less sunlight reaches that part of the earth. (Seen the science of it, definately plausible.)


 * I'm not sure about ozone quantity fluctuations, though.

Thoughts?


 * (William M. Connolley 19:16, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Yes, ozone depletion is real. No, ozone does not break down in .5-10 seconds. Try the ozone FAQ (linked from the bottom of the page), in particular http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/intro/ section 2.4. If you were correct about the lifetimes, there would be *no* ozone in the polar winter.


 * This could very well be true. He is saying that O3 is turned into O2. The O2 is then turned into O3. This is not ridiculous at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gharkib (talk • contribs) 04:42, 19 February 2006
 * It's still a good point. Ozone decomposes over about 3 months or less at stratospheric temperatures in the absence of UV light.  The FAQ does not mention this and it also explains why there is no visible variance over a night and day. kokey 16:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with the comment is not that it says there is a cycling between O2 and O3 but the timescale this requires. This whole idea is a red herrig. The science of this is very well understood and entirely consistent with the observed ozone depletion.--NHSavage 08:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I was taught the same thing in college chemistry. It seemed to me that the ozone hole is caused by nature (numerous factors but namely position of sun and earth) and has always existed and varied in size as global temperatures vary greatly through time before industrialization; and all the scientists are looking at a small set of data; and the CFC thing would be like man trying to stop a blizzard with a camp fire. The article seems to have a definite bias, as shown by statements like NO controversy according to MOST scientists while stating the only dissent is from the poster child of dissent rather than the real dissent in the scientific community.


 * If CFCs caused the ozone hole, why isn't it smack dab over North America, or even in the Northern Hemisphere, where 90% of all CFCs were released?


 * Could it be that CFCs really haev no effect on the Ozone layer, and it's just yet more fear mongering from enviromentalists?Ymous 20:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No - this question only makes sense if you think that CFCs instantly react to remove ozone which you could only think if you hadn't bothered read the article. But ots a common enoigh thought to be added to the "myths" section William M. Connolley 20:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Your last question was answered by section 9.4 of the article, but their explanation didn't satisfy me. They said that the reason the ozone hole is located over Antartica, is because of the clouds that form because of the extreemly cold temperatures. But, if this were the case, then wouldn't the clouds be the problem and not the CFC's.
 * Read further in the article, at "The ozone hole and its causes." Raymond Arritt 21:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Rm graph: why
(William M. Connolley 22:10, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I removed thumb|Ozone CFC decline because it doesn't look right. The caption "Ozone CFC decline" is odd. Its not quite clear what its a graph of... is it measured CFC levels (unlikely, since it appears to be inconsistent with Image:Major greenhouse gas trends.png) or is it measured stratospheric chlorine levels or what?

Having said that, I'll thank SEW for his good work in adding various graphs to these articles.


 * More recent graphs inserted. Image page has details.  CFC gases are not "major greenhouse gases" so there are more gases involved than in other image...and bromine.  (SEWilco 06:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC))

Hole size?
"As the ozone hole over Antarctica has in some instances grown so large as to reach southern parts of Australia and New Zealand, environmentalists have been concerned that the increase in surface UV could be significant."

This is wishy washy at best! It should read:

"As the ozone hole over Antartica grows, the tail in its shape passes over southern parts of Chile, New Zealand, Tasmania and Australia. Doctors in Punta Areanus have shown the link between the ozone hole and increased rates of skin cancer."

Is the above actually referring to low-ozone areas due to the hole breaking up? The "Largest Hole" image on the article doesn't seem to show much variation as far north as Australia. (SEWilco 03:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC))


 * The ozone hole for the 2005 season, peaked at 28,000,000 square kilometers, as measured by the NASA TOMS Satalite. You can view the past ozone pictures at the NASA TOMS satalite page. []


 * The peak data is at []


 * The concern is also extended to doctors now that higher rates of UV-A and UV-B from the effected parts of South America, has been shown to cause higher rates of skin cancer. (Note: To the people still in denil, this was established scientific fact from a paper published by Dr Jamie Abarca...look it up )


 * Artoftransformation 11:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The ozone hole in the Antartic looks like a giant comma, who's tail circles the south pole slowly. The tip of the tail passes over mostly unpopulated areas in the south sea, but passes over: ( in south to north order )
 * Punta Areanus, Chile. The largest city south of 57 degress south lattitude. ( population approx 130,000 )
 * New Zealand, which has a govermment that is interested, and funds significant research.
 * Tasmania, for which the Tasmania's are very concerned
 * Austalia, for which the conseritive government is in denil, and the scientists are doing a lot of non-funded work.


 * I will provide some links to the research in all these places, except for Australia.


 * Artoftransformation --

Interest in ozone hole
This remark reads rather oddly: "The sudden and, at that time explained, disappearance of over 50% of the ozone layer in a localized area of Antarctica created quite a stir". But what does "at that time" mean? I can quite believe the suddenness was fully expected and explained by the time there was a fuss. But was it? Or was the suddenness explained at the time the hole was first detected? Going from the rest of the article, would it be true to say that the overall effect was explained (or understood) but the suddenness was unexpected? In any case it would be helpful to put in a word about why an explained event caused a stir. Thincat 15:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 15:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)) As I understand it, the original Farman et al paper included not just the measurements showing ozone depletion but also the explanation: solid-phase reactions. The sentence is a bit odd because someone originally wrote "The sudden and, at that time unexplained, disappearance..." which makes sense as a sentence but is factually wrong; I simply inverted the original sense. It could perhaps be more elegantly put. In fact "sudden" more reasonably applies to the discovery and its publication, rather than the ozone hole, which as the graph shows ramped up over about 10-15 years.

(William M. Connolley 17:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Reword looks OK - thanks. I think that the bit about the satellite data being dismissed as a measurement error is probably a bit more subtle than the wording indicates, but I can't lay to hand the "truth" if there is any.


 * I expect so! ... and I am not quite happy with the phrase "measurement error". I'm really going on what is says elsewhere in the article (History) and my fading memory of what was in New Scientist and Horizon at the time. Whatever the cause, there certainly was "a great deal of interest". Thincat 09:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I've found this at which pretty much the same as this article with a bit more detail.
 * "When was the ozone hole discovered?
 * Ozone depletion by human-produced CFCs was first hypothesized in 1974 (Molina and Rowland, 1974). The first evidence of ozone depletion was detected by ground-based instruments operated by the British Antarctic Survey at Halley Bay on the Antarctic coast in 1982. The results seemed so improbable that researchers collected data for three more years before finally publishing the first paper documenting the emergence of an ozone hole over Antarctica (Farman, 1985). Subsequent analysis of the data revealed that the hole began to appear in 1977. After the 1985 publication of Farman's paper, the question arose as to why satellite measurements of Antarctic ozone from the Nimbus-7 spacecraft had not found the hole. The satellite data was re-examined, and it was discovered that the computers analyzing the data were programmed to throw at any ozone holes below 180 Dobson Units as impossible. Once this problem was corrected, the satellite data clearly confirmed the existence of the hole." Thincat 10:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The importance of being Bromine...
(William M. Connolley 22:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)) Which, it would seem, doesn't apply to SEW. Sigh. But anyway:


 * On a per atom basis, bromine is even more efficient than chlorine at destroying ozone, but there is much less bromine in the atmosphere at present so it is less important overall (although still significant.)

SEW removed the bolded bit, apparently under the misaprehension that it was a judgement. It isn't. It means that effect times quantity is less.


 * Somehow bromine being less important overall than chlorine doesn't seem right: "&hellip;Cl compounds to destroy over 17% of the ozone, while bromine compounds deplete another 33%." Should the relative ozone effects Br:Cl ratio be mentioned?  21:1, it think it is, but I'd have to look it up. (SEWilco 00:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC))

I believe that the sentence quoted above is incorrect. The AAOE mission concluded that 70 percent of the _observed_ depletion during the antarctic ozone hole was due to the ClO dimer cycle, while another 20 percent was due to the ClO/BrO cycle. That was a long time ago [Anderson, Toohey and Brune 1991], but I don't believe that things have changed qualitatively since. (Note that you can't break it down into chlorine vs. bromine anyway, since the principal cycle containing Br also contains Cl.) My recollection, from the days when I was following the primary research pretty carefully, was that it wasn't clear whether Cl or Br was more important at middle latitudes, but that their effects were believed to be comparable. (AFAIK, there is still no complete accounting for the mid-latitude trends.) So I thought it fair to say that chlorine was more important than bromine overall, since it's definitely more important in the antarctic and roughly comparable at mid latitudes. However, I'll put in a more neutral statement in its place. I also noticed that some of the reference links are dead and others are duplicated - I'll clean that up.--Rparson 17:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The 33% number had gotten separated from source, so I added a link. And for the "effect times quantity" calculation, the Br:Cl effect ratio is 45:1.  Bromine seems somewhat important: "The observed decrease is driven by a large and rapid decline in methyl bromide, a brominated gas &hellip;"  (SEWilco 21:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC))


 * (William M. Connolley 21:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)) I think SEW is misreading his source. It says:


 *  4. Spring brings an increase of ultraviolet light to the lower antarctic stratosphere, providing the energy needed needed for the rapid catalytic break-down of ozone by ClO and its dimer ClOOCl. Another mechanism involving Bromine adds another 33% to the depletion total.


 * It doesn't provide the 17% value. I think SEW is calculating 50-33=17. But I think this is wrong: is saying that Bromine increases the depletion by 1/3, not that Br depletes 33% of the total ozone.


 * William, your interpretation is almost certainly correct, because Brian Sparling used my FAQ as one of his principal sources ! In the corresponding section of the FAQ, which was based primarily upon the 1991 WMO/UNEP report and Anderson et al.'s 1991 review article, I said that the ClO dimer cycle accounted for about 70 percent of the observed depletion and that BrO/ClO accounted for "~20 percent". Presumably Brian came across a later estimate that upped BrO/ClO to 33 percent. I think it's extremely unlikely that BrO/ClO actually contributes more than ClO/ClO, since that would have caused a major stir in the community.


 * I did read "depletion total" as meaning "amount depleted from maximum" (x+33>50%). So is that meaning intended, or the meaning "total amount of depletion" (x+33=100%)?  Anonymous author of preceding paragraph, is there any information more recent than 1991 that you can contribute to the chemistry article?  Whatever the relative contribution, Br apparently is significant enough to have wagged the total effect downward. (SEWilco 18:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC))


 * (William M. Connolley 19:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)) He is Rparson, who wrote the ozone FAQ, as the text and edit history would tell you
 * --Rparson 16:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) I've now looked over the relevant sections in the 1994, 1998 and 2002 WMO/UNEP reports. For the antarctic, the estimates have not changed significantly since 1991. For the arctic, the BrO/ClO cycle is estimated to account for between 30 and 60 percent of the total depletion. It makes sense that BrO/ClO would be relatively more important in the arctic, since the free ClO concentrations are lower there (much less release of ClO from reservoir compounds since the clouds are less prevalent, etc. etc.) Note, however, that you cannot translate the relative effectiveness of the two cycles into the relative importance of Cl vs. Br, because both cycles involve Cl. Its a nonlinear, synergistic effect. In any event, these technical points are IMO well beyond the level of the wikipedia article. It's best to leave the article as it is now, with both Cl and Br stated to be "significant" but without trying to quantify their importance.

Std nonsense
An anon [147.240.236.9], who may well be User:Barwick, has been adding fairly standard skeptic nonsense to the page, & I've been reverting it as such. All his stuff seems to be based on Haroun Tazieff. His main point:


 * He was surprised to discover an article in the 1950 Annals of Geophysics reporting the existence of ozone holes above Norway in 1926 - years before CFC's were even dreamt of - and was astounded to find that the hole above the Antarctic was not the recent phenomenon ecologists claimed it to be. It was actually discovered as far back as 1957, he says, by the English scientist, Gordon Dobson, but it was only in the mid-eighties that satellite photos began to highlight it in a rather spectacular way.

is a std FAQ:


 * Subject: 6.) But I heard that Dobson saw an ozone hole in 1956-58... This is a myth, arising from a misinterpretation of an out-of-context quotation from a review article by Dobson. In his historical account [Dobson 1968b], Dobson mentioned that when springtime ozone levels over Halley Bay were first measured, he was surprised to find that they were about 150 DU below corresponding levels (displaced by six months) in the Arctic. Springtime arctic ozone levels are very high, ~450 DU; in the Antarctic spring, however, Dobson's coworkers found ~320 DU, close to winter levels. This was the first observation of the _normal_, pre-1980 behavior of the Antarctic ozone layer: because of the tight polar vortex (see below) ozone levels remain low until late spring. In the Antarctic ozone hole, on the other hand, ozone levels _decrease_ from these already low values. What Dobson describes is essentially the _baseline_ from which the ozone hole is measured. [Dobson 1968b] [WMO 1989]

Its item 6 at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/antarctic/

Barwick 21:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't registered until just now, that's why the IP address showed instead of the user name originally.

The posting that William M Connolley keeps vandalizing by completely deleting uses Haroun Tazieff only as one small part of the text. Whether or not Mr Connolley and his referenced page's claim that it is a misinterpretation is true or not is inconsequential (not to mention untrue). Dobson observed that the ozone varied from the expected 450 DU to 320 DU even back in 1956, and today (when the surface climate average happens to be warmer due to the natural variance of water vapor and other greenhouse factors, thereby cooling the stratosphere) we see variations even less than 320 DU. Mr. Connolley just proved my point, that the Ozone "Hole" was discovered before CFC's were introduced into the atmosphere in any quantity besides trace amounts. I contend (along with other scientists) that the insulating factors of water vapor and other natural greenhouse factors cause the surface temperature to remain warmer, while the stratospheric temperature to remain colder, allowing more formation of Polar Stratospheric Clouds which greatly promote ozone breakdown by natural and manmade Chrlorine and Bromine, AND that the natural causes of Chrlorine and Bromine are so much larger than the manmade causes, that regulation of manmade causes will have about as much impact as telling one guy in a fishing boat in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea that he can't spit over the side or he'll pollute the water.

Nevertheless, Mr Connolley CLEARLY violated the rules by completely reverting the entire page, deleting the numerous other parts of the text in his multiple revisions, in addition to text that I just defended in part here.


 * Sigh. This is all the same old stuff... ah well. Firstly, who is this Mr Connolley of whom you speak. Use my username or use WMC or use my correct title if you really insist on using a title. Secondly, you are completely mistaken about wiki's rules (and if you were right, you'd have broken them yourself by your revert).


 * Your point (that the Ozone "Hole" was discovered before CFC's were introduced into the atmosphere) is rubbish. Did you even read the text I pasted above? The 320 DU that Dobson observed is not a hole at all: it was the pre industrial baseline state. As the quote clearly states. From the same source, here is a table of ozone values:

Halley Bay Antarctic Ozone Data

Mean October ozone column thickness, Dobson Units, as measured at the British Antarctic Survey station at Halley Bay (Latitude 76 south, Longitude 26 west)

1956     321          1971      299 	  1986      248     1957      330          1972      304          1987      163       1958      314          1973      289          1988      232       1959      311          1974      274          1989      164       1960      301          1975      308          1990      179       1961      317          1976      283          1991      155       1962      332          1977      251          1992      142       1963      309          1978      284          1993      111       1964      318          1979      261          1994      124       1965      281          1980      227          1995	    129    1966      316          1981      237          1996	    139     1967      323          1982      234          1997      139    1968      301          1983      210               1969      282 	   1984      201     1970      282 	   1985      196


 * See how they atart at 320, pre-hole; and decline now to little more than 100.


 * Also that the natural causes of Chrlorine and Bromine are so much larger than the manmade causes is also nonsense. You've been reading too much Fred Singer, though even he doesn't believe that any more.


 * Singer? "The earth is not warming - Singer?"
 * This Singer? List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus Artoftransformation 12:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, same old nutty Singer. But even he doesn't believe the natural causes stuff (and didn't in 1995 either: http://www.sepp.org/ozone/ozonefranklin.html. Note that you have to read that pap carefully: its written to be full of quibbles to decieve the unwary) William M. Connolley 12:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC).


 * I've removed your gross vandalism; someone else please revert the rest of his changes.


 * William M. Connolley 21:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Barwick 22:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC) Oh ok, so expecting a value of 450 and getting a value of 320 isn't a hole (or a thinning, like the present day "hole" is)...


 * Sigh. Read it more closely: Springtime arctic ozone levels are very high, ~450 DU; in the Antarctic spring, however, Dobson's coworkers found ~320 DU, close to winter levels. No one has ever measured 450 spring in the antarctic. Dobson, initially, assumed that antarctic values would look like arctic ones. He quickly found that the assumption was wrong, based on his measurements. Values remained stable above 300 for decades, *then* started to decline to ozone-hole values in the mid-1980's, reaching 150-ish values. The data is there in the table: can you not read it?


 * All this is a misunderstanding, based on a misreading of an old paper. William M. Connolley 22:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC).

Barwick 00:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC) WMC - You have a basic understanding of Discrete Mathematics, do you not? Here, let me show you: An event "A" happens. 9 months later, event "B" happens. Did "A" cause "B"? Maybe, maybe not. Let's examine:

- If event "A" is, say "the dirty deed", and event "B" is "a baby is born", then based on 6,000 years and billions upon billions of similar events, we can reliably say that yes, indeed, "A" did cause "B".

- Now, if event "A" is the winding of a clock, and event "B" is the clock stopping ticking, then did "A" cause "B", kind of, but not necessarily, it could have reasonably happened by other means (perhaps the clock broke, or someone's hand hit the pendulum and stopped its motion).

- Now, if event "A" is a baseball going through the window of an old run-down abandoned barn that's falling apart, and event "B" is the discovery of a family of raccoons living in the barn, did "A" cause "B"? It's extremely difficult to tell. Perhaps the family of raccoons entered the barn by the broken window. Or perhaps they entered it in one of the other thirty-six holes all throughout the barn, how do you tell?

There's many more explanations, and saying that you know for sure that the raccoons living in the barn were caused by the kid playing baseball in the field, would be utterly ridiculous, when there are plenty of other valid reasons to explain why they are there. It is MUCH the same way with your assertion that manmade CFC's are causing the hole in the ozone. You look at a correlation and assume that it implies causation. If you were walking down Main street on Tuesday at 8:27 and someone was murdered at 8:29 on that same day on Main street, does that mean that you caused his murder? No, it simply means that the two events happened at the same time.


 * OK, we are (it seems) making some progress. Faced with the data, you are now abandoning your assertion that the ozone hole was found by Dobson. Thats good. You're now retreating to "yes the ozone hole occurred when cfc were emitted, but thats pure coincidence". This is a very weak position, which you'll have to abandon too. The chemistry etc is pretty well known and explained on the page and in the FAQ. I suggest you read it, and abandon your vandalism. William M. Connolley 10:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC).

Barwick's insertions
You said that your material was well-referenced, but you failed to provide a ref (only a link to geocities). Please provide an appropriate link to the literature here. In addition, your edits do not conform to the MoS, which requires an introductory paragraph. Guettarda 02:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Folks, can I point out that Barwick is spamming the same nonsense into ozone layer - please rv there William M. Connolley 10:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC).


 * It's perhaps not as relevant, but he's also been making sweeping POV changes to Creationism, suggesting, without citing sources, that since there are a large number of comets in orbit around the sun, these must have been recently placed there. . And I notice he's been using the 'vandal'-template at the top of pages here too, apparently under the impression that he is reporting vandalism. -- Ec5618 12:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah well, on the plus side she won't last long at this rate... William M. Connolley 14:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Despite all this, perhaps it raises a decent point. Perhaps a paragraph or so should be written succintly debunking the argument. - RoyBoy 800 04:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Unless its already there. (yeah I haven't read the article yet :D) - RoyBoy 800 04:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Barwick 04:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC) Guettarda: where do you see that I'm not providing any references? The references already existed at the bottom of the article (http://www.sepp.org/ozone/ozonefranklin.html), one portion of the reference says:

It is generally agreed that natural sources of tropospheric chlorine (volcanoes, ocean spray, etc.) are four to five orders of magnitude (1,000 to 10,000 times) larger than man-made sources ''- Maduro, R. A.; Schauerhammer, R. The holes in the ozone scare. Washington, DC: 21st Century Science Associates; 1992.''

Sorry for not explicitly stating "read the link at the bottom", I'll do that next time.


 * In an attempt to keep this focussed, I've deleted the comets discussion - anyone interested should go over the the creationism article. But thanks to Ec5618 for alerting us.


 * Meanwhile, following Royboys idea, I've added a couple of "myths". William M. Connolley 10:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC).


 * I helped! :D - RoyBoy 800 22:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

With regards to Barwick's comment to me - I am baffled. How can you claim something is "referenced" when you make no attempt to connect an assertion with a reputable source? You did cite a web page entitled "Greenhouse Bullcrap" for all your comments; although the name of the webpage probably does a good enough job of undermining its credibility, the fact that it's the personal webpage of a "Professional Audiovisual Operator, Driver, Handyman, Theatre Manager and Set Builder" pretty much confirms its scientific credibility. Where is Tazieff's work published? You are citing material you have read and evaluated yourself, right? Everything you added is unsourced - and claiming that it's supported by source you didn't even refer to seems less than honest. In addition, the Singer document does not mention mention Tazieff either - so how could that be your reference? Guettarda 06:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't worry too much Guettarda. Check Special:Contributions/Barwick.  You'll see Barwick has a history of attacking articles such as Abortion, Creationism, etc., etc.  Its best to just move along as he doesn't seem to editing in good faith, but rather using wikipedia for advocacy.  --Quasipalm 16:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

History of the Research
After expanding the "history" section, I decided that my additions had created a lot of redundancy with the succeeding "Ozone-oxygen cycle" section. Rather than edit the latter, I moved the "history" section way back - after "Consequences" and before "Controversy", so as to keep all the straight Science sections together. If anyone can think of a better place to put it, go ahead and move it. I will probably expand it a little bit more - add more about the experimental verification of the early Molina-Rowland work, and  more about the history of the ozone hole. --Rparson 23:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

UVA Major cause of cancer
I've put in a reference to the paper, which as far as I can see hasn't generated much in the way of controversy amongst the scientific community. You can find a discussion of the man and his work here. 


 * I have expanded the discussion and added additional references. It is important to distinguish among the various forms of skin cancer. The most common forms, basal and squamous cell carcinomas have been pretty conclusively linked to UV-B. These cancers are relatively easy to treat (although squamous cell carcinoma often requires the removal of a lot of skin, resulting in extensive reconstructive surgery.) The case is much less clear when it comes to malignant melanoma, which is much less common but far more dangerous. Most likely both UV-B and UV-A are involved, but their relative importance is not clear. I have added a reference to a review by Frank de Gruijl which summarizes the various lines of evidence. Note that Setlow was one of the peer reviewers of this article.Rparson 02:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversial Article?
Should someone add the Controversial Article bit? I think that if there is this much discussion, then it should be present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gharkib (talk • contribs) 04:45, 19 February 2006


 * Why should this be tagged controversial? The article is stable (and reflects reality), the talk is thin. William M. Connolley 11:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC).

I agree that the whole controversial article paragraph needs to be modified. Not just because of talk within wikipedia, but in other articles I have read where there have been dissenting opinions and studies about ozone depletion. Regardless of whether or not you believe your article "reflects reality", it is a little bit ridiculous to claim there is no controversy by simply ignoring the existence of alternate viewpoints. A couple of examples: http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/RobertBidinotto/OzoneDepletion.html by Robert Bidinotto, and Dr. Linwood Callis of NASA who wrote "Ozone Depletion in the High Latitude Lower Stratosphere: 1979-1990" appeared in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 96, No. D2, Feb. 20, 1991, pp. 2921-2937. If you want to explain why these arguments are thin, that's fine. But, my main problem is with the claim that there is NO controversy, followed with the inconsistent statement that MOST scientists agree.Shalmanezzer 19:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Shalmanezzer

Contradict section
Saying There is no controversy or debate regarding ozone depletion and then "One atmospheric scientist ... questions the significance of the role that CFCs play in ozone depletion", is not incredibly constant. --Midnightcomm 19:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Saying that there is no controversy or debate at all is most likely inaccurate and inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedic entry.  For example, there are plenty of resources (of varying repute) available on the Web that contradict ozone depletion (a couple specific examples:   and ).  While these may or may not be reputable sources is not the question here... I am questioning the absoluteness of "no controversy" here. 2404 07:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if you could quote accurately. You left "scientific" out of your first quote, and I hope we can all agree that scientific is an important word. I can't find your second quote either. Redbarn is a newsnet posting from someone who couldn't get published in readers digest (!). The other is some rant that can't even keep its figures on line. Try to find something vaguely credible William M. Connolley 11:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

To those who have become environmental extremists like many other's have, I would like to say that, even if the CFC's are destroying ozone, we can't stop the ozone hole from forming every year. First of all, the ozone hole is caused by a natural phenomenon that occurs at specific times of the year when, at the poles, air is blown up into the atmosphere, carrying other stuff along with it. The CFC's are not the only things destroying ozone. Please note that the ONLY place where the conditions are right for ozone to be destroyed are at the poles. Does anybody live there? NO! Than why are we worrying about it? There are no recorded deaths that are even partially related to the ozone hole while, every year, thousands of people were saved and still are saved by CFC's. Once we run out of this useful substance, people will begin to have the problems they had before CFC's were discovered. anonymous 4:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.38.8 (talk)


 * Actually UV levels in Australia and New Zealand reached and continue to reach higher levels because of the hole and both countries already have very high melanoma rates Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand why you think we should do something about this hole, but the way people have reacted to it is a little too extreme. We have completely stopped the production of CFC's: a major mistake.  I agree that we should do something about this problem, but if you decide to kill a large portion of the world population to save a few islands of people, you are over-doing your safety measures.  It is not that I don't care about those people.  The government has done a lot already.  If you find a very recent article about this topic, you will find the hole has shrank by a lot.  Australia and New Zealand are quite safe by now.  If we resume production of CFC's(and produce them at the same rate they are used up), the hole isn't going to grow.    anonymous  3:16, 2 May 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.38.8 (talk)


 * This has taken place during the timeframe when Aussies and Kiwis are wearing less clothes, right? Could there be a causal relationship?Mzmadmike (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Rework?
This article is a disaster, mixing together ozone depletion (mid-latitude weakining of the ozone layer by ~15%) with the polar ozone hole phenominon. They are different mechanisms and must be differentiated. I am going to start reworking the article tonight unless someone can give me a good reason not to, and that is going to be very, very hard to find.

Josh Halpern


 * Probably a fair point. It might be agood idea to do the re-work in a temporary space, like this: Ozone depletion/tmp if its going to take a while (ps: sign your talk edits with ~ . William M. Connolley 16:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC).


 * From the history, I see that there were originally two separate articles on ozone depletion and ozone hole, but that they were merged at some point. It might be a good idea to separate them again - let the present article (with most of the more detailed Ozone Hole information removed) be the framework for an Ozone Depletion article that only describes the Ozone Hole briefly, and spawn a separate article for Ozone Hole. I also have always thought it odd that Ozone-Oxygen Cycle gets a separate article but I don't object to keeping it thus (it has actually matured into a pretty good article, brief as it is.) --Rparson 21:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I may have been guilty :-( But that doesn't mean I won't reconsider my sins :-) William M. Connolley 19:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It probably made sense at the time. The article has grown a lot longer since then, and it may be time for a split. That would help to make the overall level of the article more uniform, too. I'll wait until Josh is done with the main article, then put together a draft of an Ozone Hole article. It might be a good idea to have a separate article on Consequences of Ozone Depletion too.

I'm a skeptic, but find the article to be generally fair and well-written. I just added a bunch of Citation Needed tags, though (for both article and dissent) because so much of it is not sourced well. It's possible I added some extraneous ones--it's a clunky article in spots. Please feel free to remove them if the section is properly sourced. I concur it could use a rewrite to neaten things up. Also, the dissent (and support for POSITIVE side effects of ozone depletion) are only mentioned in passing. Could those be put or reiterated in one section for clarity and visibility?Mzmadmike (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ozone Hole Repair and Ozone Seeding
It doesn't appear as if this article has any information on the viability of "repairing" the ozone hole or in the very least undoing human induced reductions in the ozone layer. To what extent is this possible and/or viable? I simply don't know enough about it and couldn't find much info from a brief search. ,

Having made the above caveat, I'm wondering if you could someday repair the hole or preempt the damge from ozone depleting chemicals that have yet to be released or work their way into the upper atmosphere. I'm thinking of some kind of massive project that would involve (possibly nuclear powered aircraft) releasing large quantities of chemicals to stimulate ozone production in sunlight or the brute force approach: Anywhere from dozens to thousands of robotic or remotely controlled nuclear powered aircraft would continually circle the south pole generating large amounts of ozone from atmospheric O2 and keep it up until the hole was repaired to the state it was before human induced reductions, or for good measure even thicker. Even if that is viable when will the global economy be able to afford it and is the benefit compelling enough? How might nanotechnology be able to repair it? Could we somehow induce lightning in the upper Antarctic atmosphere to do the trick? Maybe I watched too much Star Trek, but I'd like to think it possible for us to "fix" what we "broke".

...Hmmm... Maybe my search was a little too brief. A more thorough search turned up a few interesting articles about repair and I've linked some of them in the main article under external links. Maybe there should be a section in the main article about repair and other solutions and their viability? Most "repairs" don't really repair, just stop or slow the destruction of the ozone and thereby speed up the natural return.


 * I *was* going to reply that repair just can't be done. In fact I still think thats true, in any practical way, but maybe some people have pondered how it might be done, in theory William M. Connolley 10:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * About 15 years ago, Ralph Cicerone published a speculative proposal for reducing the concentrations of Cl radicals in the stratosphere. The basic idea was to release several planeloads of propane or butane into the stratosphere. These would convert the active, ozone-destroying Cl radicals into inactive HCl (basically reversing the process that causes the polar ozone holes). The procedure would have to be repeated each year, though, since the Cl would not be removed, but only sequestered. Cicerone made it clear that he wasn't putting this out as an action item but rather trying to get people thinking about the problem, in the event that ozone depletion should turn out to be much worse than was thought at the time. There's a brief summary with references in the FAQ (Part III).--Rparson 22:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Less politics, more science
A brief glance at this article did not show me how much ozone there was in the atmosphere, much less how much has been "depleted" in the last 50 years. I did see a lot of verbiage about how the "observed" depletion of ozone justifies the Montreal Protocol's curbs of CFC usage.

Would the article please address observations of ozone concentrations in various places and at various altitudes?

Secondly, if ozone blocks Ultraviolet light in the "B" range (UVB), and since UVB causes certain kinds of cancer, could we please also have some measurements of UVB reaching the surface? Or at least UVB detected by instruments flown, aloft or in orbit?
 * In fact, the majority of so-called "stratospheric ozone measurements" are really UVB measurements of some sort. The ground-based Dobson and Brewer spectrophotometers measure the intensity of UV-B at several wavelengths, relative to intensity at several UVA wavelengths, and use this to calculate the ozone column. The satellite-based instruments (TOMS, et al.) measure UV scattered back from the ozone layer. Of course these are not direct measurments of total surface UVB - those are very difficult (as I'm sure Halpern can tell you at great length, absolute light intensity measurements are very tough to do even in a controlled lab environment, let alone in the field). But I think the case could be made that the connection between TOMS or Dobson-Brewer data and surface UV-B is at least as secure as the connection between the MSU data and tropospheric temperatures.
 * I do have some references to direct surface UV-B measurements in Part IV of the Ozone FAQ, and it would probably be useful to put some of it in the article. The problem is, the article is already getting unwieldy and it would probably be better to wait until we've decided about whether to break it up into several articles. --Rparson 20:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Its been suggested and no one has objected. I think you should Just Do It William M. Connolley 20:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Published claims (in Science, 262:1032, 1993) that UV-B is increasing at 35% per year were later shown to be false (Science, 264:1341, 1994)

I wonder if the current article takes into account the 1994 correction (in Science) to the highly-publicized but erroneous 1993 paper. --Uncle Ed 20:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't trust a word that Singer writes. But Rparson will know better. I'll look up the Science papers tomorrow at work, and if forced to eat my words, well... chomp chomp William M. Connolley 00:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, predictably enough my words are safe and Singers are... well, distinctly dodgy is being kind.


 * Evidence for large upward trends of ultraviolet-B radiation linked to ozone depletion by J B Kerr and C T McElroy, Science 262:1032 is the original article
 * Analysing ultraviolet-B radiation: is there a trend? by P J Michaels, S F Singer and P C Knappenberger, Science 264:1342 is a comment
 * Kerr and McElroy then reply, affirming their original findings and pointing out problems with the comment. Odd that Singer didn't find time to mention that, eh?
 * In my opinion, there was some underlying substance to the criticism of Michaels et al., which unfoturnately was obscured because they tried to push it way too far. Kerr and McElroy should not have used the word "trend" in their title, because to most people that implies some sort of long term observation which is not at all what K&M did. What they did observe could more properly be described as a "response". The background here is that during the spring of 1993, ozone levels over high northern latitudes underwent a dramatic decline, which has been convincingly attributed to heterogeneous chemistry on the sulfate aerosols from the Pinatubo Eruption. K&M observed that when the ozone-depleted air arrived over their station (following the breakup of the arctic vortex), their surface UV measurements went sharply upwards, exactly as expected. Similar observations were made from stations in Greece and in Germany (references in the FAQ). This is actually more useful than a mere trend observation, since it provides information that can be used in calibrating the quantitative relationship between total surface UV and stratospheric ozone. If Michaels et al. had focussed on the difference between "trend" and "response" they could have made a valuable clarification since the title and abstract of the K&M paper don't spell this out at all clearly. Unfortunately they jumped to conclusions and tried to attribute the whole observation to a statistical fluke. And once again, they pick out a single paper from a large and mutually reinforcing body of literature. I've never seen Singer mention the Greek or German papers, or the Reply to their comment, or Weatherhead's extensive reanalysis of the US Robertson-Berger meter measurements. --Rparson 20:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So shown to be false is junk. Correction is technically the wrong term William M. Connolley 11:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

New fact in intro
I am not convinced that it is an approriate use of the WMO report to use as the second sentance of this article the least worrying of all the many statistics in the executive summary. I would rather use several of them. I think the whole lead section is now a mess with too much detail. I also think we need to decide whether the intro needs references for things which are properly referenced in the main body.

Oh and the key responsibility for the report is WMO and UNEP not NOAA (although they are co-authors and have the report on their website). I have now fixed this. A new WMO/UNEP report is currently in preparation.--NHSavage 22:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I just wanted to make it clear that there hasn't been a 50% loss of depletion over 50 years - just 3% or (whatever tiny fraction it is). I put the first fact I could google into the intro. The article itself didn't provide any numbers I could see. --Uncle Ed 23:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the figure showing composite Nimbus-7 and Earth Probe TOMS measurements of global ozone answers most of Ed's questions, since it illustrates the long term trend together with the seasonal oscillation. I've copied it up to the top - it's a more appropriate figure to go with the introduction than the ozone hole image, which I've moved back down. The intro still needs a rewrite - I will take this up this weekend unless someone else gets to it first. In general the article is getting pretty long and should probably be broken up into three - Ozone Depletion, Ozone Hole and Impacts of Ozone Depletion.
 * Don't forget to take a quick glance at Ultraviolet light and cancer William M. Connolley 19:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Qs from Isabelle Hakala
This from mine and her talk page:

Hi, I am a total nubie, so please forgive me if I didn't put this in the correct place. my user is: ismirth, in case you need it. I was reading the ozone pages (many of them) and I was wondering if there is some other phenominon that might be being overlooked? I guess I just couldn't tell if there was really less ozone /everywhere/, not just at the hole. If the entire global ozone content has gone down, then I would like to see those stats (or maybe they are there but I need them dumbed down:)). Because it seems that maybe the air currents have changed in a way that makes there be less ozone of the hole, but more ozone someplace else on the planet.


 * Since we have a fairly good understanding of what is going on, its not clear why you should be looking for anything else to explain it... William M. Connolley 18:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, I am actually totally a believer in the hole in the ozone, but I like to debate and that was the only (opposite) view that I haven't found an clear (to me) answer to.

Also, and this might be naive, but why can't we just dump a bunch of ozone into the stratosphere to help it out, in the mean time, until we can get our greenhouse gases lower? Is it possible, but cost prohibitive? Or is there some other reason?


 * Ozone is created and destroyed. Adding more would not help unless done continuously which would be absurdly difficult. William M. Connolley 18:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And I know you said to check back here for your answer, or to put a request here to go my talk pages, (which is what I wanted to do), but I can't figure out how to create the talk page. It gives a link for creation of new pages, but talkpages weren't listed there. It seems really unclear and convoluted to me (so does adding comments to the discussion pages, which is why I came here to do it instead, where I hope that you are more forgiving if I mess something up:)) Anyways, if you can look at my talk page, and if by some miracle I got it working, do you think you could leave a copy of your response there?  thanks:) -Isabelle aka ismirth

There are always new ways to see things... Isabelle Hakala
Hi William,

I know I didn't say it before, but I am a scientist (Biologist), and I believe that if there is dissent on a topic, then one should thoroughly peruse both sides of said topic. This is what makes for good (non-hostile) debates, and makes people far more persuasive in their opinions. I also know, that many of the scientists of the past have felt they had a "a fairly good understanding of what is going on, [so] why ... look for anything else to explain it..." (the world is flat, sickness is caused by humors, there is no such thing as invisble bugs that can make us sick... etc) and well, that just doesn't fly as a life choice for me:) I don't want to make assumptions based on other peoples beliefs. I don't want to just take someone else's word for it.  I want to be shown the evidence, perhaps have it explained to me, and work it out for myself.  That is what makes a responsible scientist and human.  A sense of curiosity, innovation, and open-mindedness, often creates profound growth and movement forward in any field.

I understand that you have been having a wiki-war with someone about this topic, and that isn't what I am looking for. So I apologize if made you feel that you need to defend the majority's viewpoint, it wasn't my intention. I was just hoping for a distilled answer that would help me have a conversation about the ozone layer with others (especially people who think it is a sham). Having the answers to those questions would show that I had taken the time to think through their side of the topic, and that often defuses hostilities. As we explore possibilities, and discard them for ourselves, it instills in others a faith and trust in our process.

With that in mind, I wanted to say that just because I said I was a newbie at wiki, and naive on /this/ topic, doesn't mean that I am not smart in other areas, nor that my questions wouldn't be good ones. It might calm your wiki-war down a bit if you collated the information that I was asking about and used it to,perhaps, convince the other person. That is basically why I wanted it for myself. Shifted air-currents is the only explanation I could come up with that someone might be able to use to delude themselves of our situation and so I wanted to be informed *enough* to perhaps sway someone in the general direction of helping to clean up the damage we have wreaked upon our atmosphere (instead of continuing to add to it).

If you are confident and comfortable with your understanding of the topic, they why not explore it with others? I don't mind being shot down by being given a clear (or clearer) view of the facts, and I had hoped to find someone to enlighten me in this topic.

Sincerely, Isabelle Hakala 08:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no (credible) dissent on the physics of this. I'm really not sure what you are referring to. And... what wiki-war? William M. Connolley 08:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ozone depletion question
Hi, I was reading the ozone pages (many of them) and I was wondering if there is some other phenominon that might be being overlooked? I guess I just couldn't tell if there was really less ozone /everywhere/, not just at the hole. If the entire global ozone content has gone down, then I would like to see those stats (or maybe they are there but I need them dumbed down:)). Because it seems that maybe the air currents have changed in a way that makes there be less ozone of the hole, but more ozone someplace else on the planet.

Interestingly, I am actually totally a believer in the hole in the ozone, and global warming, but I like to debate and that was the only (opposite) view that I haven't found an clear (to me) answer to.

Also, and this might be naive, but why can't we just dump a bunch of ozone into the stratosphere to help it out, in the mean time, until we can get our greenhouse gases lower? Is it possible, but cost prohibitive? Or is there some other reason?

I have also left this question on my talk page, but I wasn't sure how to link to back to it. Can you put a link on my talk page pointing at your response? thanks:) --Isabelle Hakala 09:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I just can't believe, that the ozone in the atmosphere can really absorb an considerable part of the UV-radiation from the sun, since where the total amount of ozone in the atmosphere 300 Dobson units is only about 0.3 ppm or a 3 mm layer at normal pressure. There are many other molecules and particles in the atmosphere which are much more abundant. At least I didn't find any explaination why ozone and no other molecules can absorb UV-B radiation.
 * Its just so happens because of QM-type stuff that O3 absorbs at the right frequencies William M. Connolley 20:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that's no real explaination, since ozone must absorb not just one frequency, but the whole band between 270 and 315 nm in order to protect the earth from the UV-B radiation. Moreover, I can not see, what is so special about ozone concerning QM-type stuff compared to all the other molecules in the air.


 * It certainly wasn't a full explanation, just in the right direction. If you want to understand this, you are going to have to progress from "I just can't believe" to understanding or at least reading about ozones vibrational, rotational modes etc etc. Which is probably on the ozone page William M. Connolley 21:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I known, the absorption spectra of molecules are explained by vibrational, rotational modes etc etc. But, what is so special about ozone compared to all the other molecules.
 * Vibrations and rotations aren't involved here, it's rather the electronic transitions. The electronic energy levels of ozone are closer together than those of nitrogen or oxygen. So they can absorb radiation that has longer wavelengths (longer wavelengths -> lower frequency -> smaller energy). So why are the energy levels closer together.  Very roughly speaking, because the molecule is larger - O3 is bigger than O2. That doesn't explain why CO2 doesn't absorb at these wavelengths, but that only shows that you can only carry the size argument so far - "it turns out that way". The point is, the absorption spectra of all of these molecules are very well known, and ozone is the only one that (a) absorbs efficiently in the range 240-320 nm) and (b) is present in the atmosphere in sufficient quantities to matter.


 * Obviously the ozone concentration chances anually. I can't see any obvious reason, since the total radiation from the sun does not change during the year (this happens only to one hemisphere).

What is the reason for these annual fluctuations ?
 * The article ozone layer gives an elementary explanation. You have to take stratospheric wind patterns into account, it's pretty complicated (but again, well known - Dobson and Brewer figured it out in the 1940's).


 * The elementary explanation is - "It also varies with season, being in general thicker during the spring and thinner during the autumn. The reasons for this latitude and seasonal dependence are complicated, involving atmospheric circulation patterns as well as solar intensity."


 * Sorry, but this is no explaination at all.
 * The entire subsequent section (five paragraphs) is devoted to fleshing out the words above! Rparson 00:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Spring on the northern hemisphere ist autumn on the southern hemisphere. I would guess that the varies with season correlate to emissions on the northern hemisphere due to heating in winter
 * No, it doesn't. Read the article !Rparson 00:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I read the article ozone layer once again. It was changed recently and a lot of doubtful statements (for example about the lifetime of ozone) were added trying to explain why the concentration varies with season. But, still there is no reasonable explaination for global (not just one hemisphere) chances with season. 84.169.254.173 20:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ozone hole
i am doing a school project and looked up ozone hole and it gave me ozone deepletion, please make a seperate article for ozone holes

Thanks, Travis I have recently been looking at your information but most of the Questions about the ozone layer are not here so i just wanna write it down so you can answer it?

Has an incresed exposure to UV radiation had any negative effects?

thanks ****

Nitric Oxide
VSmith, NO "is" Nitric oxide. Yes, it is a free radical; it is also one of the commonly occurring nitrogen-oxygen compounds. The terminology "nitric oxide" for NO is pre-IUPAC, but is so thoroughly established that it would be confusing to call it anything else. Elsevier actually publishes an entire journal with the title Nitric oxide.

Hole No More?
At the end of his movie, Al Gore seemed to suggest we had "solved" the problem of the hole in the Ozone. Is that the case? If so, should there be some mention of it in here?


 * You mean the Current_events_and_future_prospects_of_ozone_depletion section? William M. Connolley 20:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Diffusion
Just about this section: "When the Antarctic ozone hole does break up, the ozone-depleted air drifts out into nearby areas. Decreases in the ozone level of up to 10% have been reported in New Zealand in the month following the break-up of the Antarctic ozone hole."

Surely this is scientifically wrong? Rather than ozone depleted air causing low ozone levels in New Zealand, doesn't ozone instead move across to fill the hole? Crabula 22:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * When the polar vortex breaks up in the summer, the ozone-rich air outside the vortex mixes with the ozone-depleted air inside. The mixing is convective, not diffusive - patches of ozone-depleted air drift northwards as they are displaced by the ozone-rich air that is filling the hole. --Rparson 19:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Industry's response to ozone depletion science
The recent edits by John D. Croft are based on a highly tendentious position paper by Greenpeace. I have deleted some statements that are simply incorrect (the chemical industry did not "sponsor" the National Academy reports) or misleading in the present context (when Dupont stated that there was no evidence of damage to the ozone layer in 1979, they were correct. There was strong scientific support for the hypothesis of future depletion, but there was no clear evidence of existing depletion at that time.) Nevertheless, industry opposition certainly did play an important role in the development of the subject, so I have rewritten the remainder of Croft's additions to make them more in accord with NPOV. In doing so I have consulted Sharon Roan's generally accurate and balanced treatment, which I have added to the reference list together with other popular and technical books. I have left the link to the Greenpeace paper in for now, as it provides a verifiable source for the quotations which AFAIK are accurate in themselves; when I find alternate sources I will remove the link.


 * Reading your rewrite of my suggested additons seems to have deleted all reference to industry opposition to the science of ozone depletion altogether. Such opposition was a fact, as an Australian it caused us some consternation when the hole was found and it was realised that we would suffer more than those who caused the problem.  We suffer similar problems with those denying global warming.


 * Regards John D. Croft 07:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually kept most of your stuff, including two of the three quotes that you included; however, their impact was diluted because I split the material over two sections (moving much of it into the Public Policy section.) To redress the balance, I have highlighted the remarks that remain in the "History" section by moving them to the beginning of a paragraph, and adding another specific instance (taken from Roan's book). Hope this helps. --Rparson 04:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-arrange for clarity?
The article mentions that the PSC's are important, but doesn't seem to explain why until much further into the article. Even then I'm not sure I fully understand their importance. The Observations section is slotted in between the two sections that mention the PSC's and their effects, so the narative is seriously upset. I would suggest that the Observations be moved below the explaination.

Maury 12:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Volcano Impact
Why is there no mention of the impact due to natural causes such as volcanoes. When Pinatubo blew in the Philippines it dumped Sulfur dioxide, which also depletes ozone, into the atmosphere. It was said to cause a 5% increase in the hole over the southern pole, and depleted the equatorial ozone significantly. If one eruption can do that, what about the smaller eruptions every year? Is this natural occurence the side effect of coming out of an ice age. After all, the Earth has been coming out of an ice ace for the last ten thousand years. How do we know this isn't a natural result? I would hope that the Earth has been getting warmer since the Ice age, otherwise it would get awfully cold at night. 192.31.106.35 15:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC) RGUpdike

New developments (2006)
In the section Current events and future prospects of ozone depletion depletion it says: "In October 2006, the ESA reported the ozone hole, while not reaching the record size of 2000 (in 2006 28 km²)". However, this article at abc news (sorry, don't know if that's a good source) says "The so-called "hole" in the earth's protective ozone layer is at a new record — 10.6 million square miles of sky around the South Pole [...] U.S. government scientists, who said protecting the ozone layer was still clearly the right thing to do, but that it's taking longer than originally expected for the ozone layer to heal. [...] 'And then it will start tipping over, and decreasing, and be gone around 2070'".

Would anyone care to update the article? I don't feel confident to do it myself since I just registered. --JVersteeg 22:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The title of the Current events and future prospects of ozone depletion section should, I think, be changed to "Past and Current Events..." since a significant portion of the material in that section relates to events which are in the past. I didn't really see a better place to move the past events to... unless we want to just change the title to "Events and prospects of..." and create "past" and "current" and "future" sub-sections. For now I'll just prepend the proposed bit to the section title until there's further discussion and consensus of how to better arrange the material. 137.190.194.20 (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Rowland-Molina Reaction
Is this the Rowland-Molina Reaction? The chemical shorthand for these reactions are:

Cl + O3 → ClO + O2

ClO + O → Cl + O2

In sum O3 + O → O2 + O2

For this mechanism to operate there must be a source of O atoms, which is primarily the photodissociation of O3.

external pictographic representaton of the rxn

Should it have its own article or at least be pointed out as such in this article? --Rajah 18:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Chemical reaction
I have a question regarding the chemical reaction. In the text it states that

Cl + O3 → ClO + O2

ClO + O → Cl + O2

But where is the single O coming from in the second line? Shouldn't it read as follows:


 * Cl + O3 → ClO + O2


 * ClO + O3 → Cl + 2 O2

Because you have no single O left in the first line, there can't appear one in the second line out of nothing. I was pointed to this mistake in the German Wikipedia which used the same (proposedly wrong) formula by an IP, but I'm not very familiar with chemical reactions, su could someone please explain and/or clarify? Thanks! Hardern 13:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: Trying to find the answer myself, I visited this link. There it is stated that O3 + UV light → O2 + O. Maybe this should be integrated more prominently? Hardern 13:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That is such a gross oversimplification. According to Dr Drew Schindell, NASA-Goddard, It takes
 * 1. ozone and oxigen and
 * 2. Polar stratospheric clouds
 * 3. stabilization of the polar vortex
 * 4. a special angle of light incidence. ( this is the one that is causing a lot of confustion/debate )
 * 5. the power of UV-B light.
 * 6. a temperature range associated with historically colder temperatures
 * 7. the presence of moisture and certain catalytic particulate matter and
 * 8. other compounds like CFCs.
 * Then you get ozone destruction. Even what I have explained here is also simplified. The theory is being developed, and these are the counter intuitive steps that are become currently accepted over the last 10 years, and will continue to develop. The particulate matter is what is being currently investigated, It was thought that the presence of titanium particles from the engines of jets is the best guess, as well as the sulfur from jet exhaust, and other impurities of jet fuel. But since fixing the ozone hole would involve grounding world wide stratospheric flight NASA halted this line of investigation. Just wait and see. After 250 years, we will have a much clearer picture, and will have suffered the worst epidemic man has ever faced. Have fun! 173.8.65.213 (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)--
 * Also no, those aren't the equations of and they are from work done in the early 1990s,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.65.213 (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Polar Stratospheric Clouds
I'm wondering about the line "The Antarctic stratosphere is colder than the Arctic, and PSCs form more readily, which is why ozone holes first formed over Antarctica." Is this saying that ozone holes are formed due to the colder stratosphere, or due to the presence of the polar stratospheric clouds? Either way, it could use some citations and clarification. --skew-t 08:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ozone depletion goes much faster with PSCs. PSCs only form in extreme cold. I think that the ozone FAQ III section 7 covers this William M. Connolley 11:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

contradiction?
MC put on a c-s tag on the "controversy" bit. I've inserted "scientific", removed Singer, and the tag. Singer only quibbles past policy I think; and doesn't deserve inclusion under "science". William M. Connolley 19:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

James Lovelock
Not Lovelock: Somebody please correct. This is the wrong attribution. It was a scientifically unknown Englishman who liked to measure odd thde the original measurements of the CFCs in the atmosphere on a commercial cruise with his wife in the South Atlantic. I believe his first name is George, and can't remember his last. The story was that he had a penchant for making unimportant measurements and was distressed with the ensuing fuss, reporters and all, when his measurement prompted Molina and Rowlands paper. Probably the whole history should be critically reviewed, the dates aren't as I remember. Zamia12 20:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It was James Lovelock. See Roan's book, or the book by Dotto and Schiff. He wasn't quite "scientifically unknown" at the time (he had invented the Electron Capture Detector, which made such measurements possible in the first place) but he was far less prominent than he has become since (this was some years before he propounded the Gaia Hypothesis.) --Rparson 23:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

. James Lovelock (most popularly known as the creator of the Gaia hypothesis) had recently discovered, during a cruise in the South Atlantic in 1971, that almost all of the CFC compounds manufactured since their invention in 1930 were still present in the atmosphere.

Removed POV section
The myths section was very POV, so I got rid of it. The Little Internet Kitty 18:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The myths section is accurate and interesting and useful, so I restored it. Exactly what POV problems do you have with it? William M. Connolley 18:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It seemed to be suggesting that those who disagree with ozone depletion theories are wrong. Plus to me it seemed unencyclopedic. The Little Internet Kitty 17:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, they are wrong if they disagree with those things. Everything in that section is factual and NPOV. The moon is not made of green cheese; the earth isn't supported by giant turtles; gases don't fractionate by molecular weight in the troposphere and stratosphere; etc. Raymond Arritt 17:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It still doesn't seem very encyclopedic. The Little Internet Kitty 18:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that explainations of phenominae in atmospheric science are inherently ad hoc, "just so" stories.   It seems a bit strong to dismiss alternatives as "Myths". 23:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Nobel Foundation disagrees. Raymond Arritt 00:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * One foundation does not mean that you are allowed to put POV or show bias one way or another. This is an Encyclopedia with verifiable evidence, not "truth." To claim something is a myth is POV. SanchiTachi 16:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

statement on lack of controversy is a bit too strong
This statement is false, as it stands:
 * There is no scientific controversy or debate regarding ozone depletion.

In fact it's nearly always false to say that of any significant area of science, no debate regarding it exists. What I think this meant to say (which is correct) is that the fact that ozone depletion happens is not seriously in doubt within the scientific community. There is of course still quite a bit of "debate regarding ozone depletion": for example, over how quickly a depletion trend would reverse itself if the offending chemicals were banned, over precisely which catalysts have which effects, over the relative importance of various mechanisms of effect, and so on. I'm going to try to reword this accordingly.--Delirium 21:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, there is debate over the details. But "the fact that ozone depletion happens is not seriously in doubt within the scientific community" is wrong: because it implies its lightly in doubt, which it isn't. At least AFAIK: can you think of any reputable reseaqrchers who have published otherwise? William M. Connolley 18:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Delirium's choice of words is appropriate. To me, "not seriously in doubt"  places ozone depletion in approximately the same category as HIV/AIDS or (absence of) Cold Fusion, which is about right. Rparson 21:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dr Drew Schindell, and Dr Paul Newman. Dr Drew Schindell is the chief scientist for constructing computer models of ozone depeletion. Dr Paul Newman of NASA is the principal investigator for ozone depletion. 173.8.65.213 (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)--


 * All scientific theories should have an air of doubt surrounding them; such is the nature of science. The goal of science is not to prove, but to disprove and formulate the best educated guess about how things work.  This allows the discipline to have great flexibility in order to facilitate new and often counterintuitive findings.  Science without doubt is simply dogma. 71.96.69.173 23:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The reference for the edited statement is circular in nature. http://www.answers.com/topic/ozone-depletion contains a cached version of this Wiki article, which contains the statement, "There is no scientific controversy or debate regarding ozone depletion." 71.96.69.173 23:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

GA review
1. Well written? External links to be cleaned up

2. Factually accurate? I don't understand what it means by "Most muts are captan planets" in the Nontechnical books of the reference section.

3. Broad in coverage? ✅

4. Neutral point of view? ✅

5. Article stability? ✅

6. Images? ✅

OhanaUnited  09:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Missed this... FWIW, point 2 looks to have been vandalism, and is no longer there William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Climate Change
Ozone isn't related to climate to a significant enough degree to make its inclusion in this WikiProject anything other than confusing, so I've removed the badge. Verisimilus  T  09:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, your tax dollars go towards research that proves the link. Its accepted science, by peer reviewed journals. How many refrences do you need? I have more than 100. 173.8.65.213 (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)--

Externakl links
There were multiple redundant links-same info repeated over and over-I removed at least some of the redundancy. I also removed a couple of links that were outdated---Energyadonis 16:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What About Tap Water?
Why isn't the amount of chlorine dumped into tap water in virtually every city throughout the world ever talked about? Where does that chlorine go?

--R06u3AP 19:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not into the stratosphere, so it has nothing to do with OD William M. Connolley 08:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to make that assertion with a certainty that implies extraordinarily reliable evidence. Can you elaborate on that? Please explain why evaporated chlorine from tap water cannot make its way to the stratosphere the same way as CFCs. Please tell us where it ends up, if not into the atmosphere. Thanks.

64.178.164.26 15:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Its soluble. It rains out, so never makes the strat. Try the ozone FAQ William M. Connolley 16:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ozone Hole in Arctic Circle
I removed:


 * As we already know about the ozone hole in Antarctica but there is least possibility of it to be formed in Arctic region as the polar vortex which traps the CFC's is not as tight as that of Antarctic region. Moreover, the conditions needed for polar stratospheric clouds to be formed are not found in arctic region as the temperature is much warmer than -80 degree C which does not allow PSC to be formed. Hence there is less possibility of ozone hole to be formed in Arctic region.

which is poor english. The ideas are mostly covered elsewhere; but the idea of a section explaining why there is no ozone hole in the arctic is reasonable William M. Connolley 11:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Discovery of CFC
This article states : "Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were invented by Thomas Midgley in the 1920s". However, as far as I know, in 1892 the Belgian chemist Frédéric Swarts was the first to prepare chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs): the first one he made was CFCl3, but he was also first to make CF2Cl2, the first CFC to become commercially important. . However Midgley was involved in preparing the first chlorofluorocarbons (Organofluorine chemistry). Please check again. JoJan 12:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

References in 'References' section unclear
When you peruse the list of references, you will notice a lot of them that do not have a description. It can be quite tedious to have to refer to the article each time. Would it not be best to have a description on each and every reference listed? x_terminat_or_3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.212.67 (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

New research on Cl2O2 reaction
I don't know enough chemistry to comment on this research but I hope someone will look into it and update the article as appropriate. Nature magazine is reporting new research finding that the break-down rate of Cl2O2 is almost an order of magnitude lower than the supposed rate. "This must have far-reaching consequences," Rex says. "If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being." What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear. Sbowers3 18:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * For a better prospective:
 * "Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, which finds that the data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2) is almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate."
 * Dr Drew Shindell's new model for global climatic change improved from explaining 77% of the ozone loss to 88% of the ozone loss.
 * Rex was working on verifying the Nobel Prize work, Shindell is working on global clamatic modeling. What does your intuition say about a theory that is loosing ground vs a theory that is gaining ground?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.0.29 (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Does magnetic reversal play a role
The earths magnetic poles are slowly reversing could this be playing a role in the ozone depletion over the south pole? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.170.128.65 (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No. The time scale for reversal of magnetic poles is much, much too slow compared to the time scale for ozone depletion. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

An addition to the CFCs in the atmosphere section
I am thinking about adding some more information to this section about the measures taken against the use of CFCs as well as how effective these measures were. I am also planning on adding some facts about CFCs and the impact they have on the ozone layer --Ilikemangos (talk) 07:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is already fairly complete about CFCs and the ozone layer, and there is a lot on Montreal protocol, etc. I'm not sure is an improvement William M. Connolley (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

New research?
Not keen on this. The paper is genuine, but the conclusions are too strong William M. Connolley (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I added the "New contradictory research" section, then moved it. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I apologize if I'm not 100% on the style and protocol; didn't know I was supposed to note my additions in the 'dicussion' section. I revised down the 'strength' of the conclusions (added more conditional language), but I was merely trying to accurately mirror the opinions stated by the scientists interviewed in the Nature piece. There are, however, lot of conclusions in this Wiki-article that seem 'strong' in their wording, and aren't even sourced. I only added the section because it wasn't in here, and did seem pretty relevant to the chemistry of the process. Hope this addresses the issues with the 'graph. Not a member, so here's my name: Paul Jones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.101.81 (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

CFC alternatives
Is there nothing relating to CFC alternatives such as HFCs, HCFCs, or pure hydrocarbons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.7.147.39 (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be something in here about UVC?
"UVC is almost never observed in nature because it is absorbed completely in the atmosphere, as are Far UV and Vacuum UV. Germicidal lamps are designed to emit UVC radiation because of its ability to kill bacteria. In humans, UVC is absorbed in the outer dead layers of the epidermis. Accidental overexposure to UVC can cause corneal burns, commonly termed welders' flash, and snow blindness, a severe sunburn to the face. While UVC injury usually clears up in a day or two, it can be extremely painful." Ozone blocks pretty much all of UVC radiation, but I don't see anything on the page about it... Is it good/important enough to add to the article that ozone also absorbs UVC?

134.197.153.251 (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

hole or "hole"
Re. I don't care a lot either way, but it's not really a hole, so "hole" is defensible William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ozone hole (no quotes) is what is used nearly exclusively in the press. As often, the composite of two words has acquired a new meaning that differs somewhat from a naive analysis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly care, but it should be consistent throughout the article. It already has a section (unreferenced) on hole v "hole": Ozone depletion. -Atmoz (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sweden banning CFC in 1978
In reference to discussions I started here and here:

According to the Senior Registry Clerk at Sweden's Ministry of the Environment, The ban against CFC in aerosol spray came in to force 1st January 1989. She pointed me to Sweden's 1988 legislation 1 and to the current ordinance CFC is regulated by. 2

After extensive searching, I see mention on the Internet of a 1979 "ban", but no proof prior to the 1988 legislation. In speculation, since I can find no mention of a ban against CFC in the annals of Swedish Law prior to 1988, I can only speculate that it was probably a voluntary initiative and not an actual ban. Kentholke (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We could just delete "Sweden". That leaves us with a need to source the rest... I suspect it is from Robert Parsons' FAQ, which is generally a good source William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Rather than do that right away...


 * I emailed my regional EPA last Tuesday (March 3) as there is reference on the EPA website in a 1980 press release.3 There's a note on their contact page that asks for allowance of about 10 days, usually shorter, for a response. I'm convinced something happened about that time (as the Stockholm Convention site makes reference as well). I suggest giving a couple days more for the EPA response. If they don't respond, I'll email them again. A couple days from now (if no response), I feel a change of verbage is warranted. A definitive statement such as the one the Senior Registry Clerk made, somebody I would expect not to have been hired just yesterday, carries a bit of weight.


 * I consider Robert Parsons to be a good source as well. I didn't spot the reference you alluded to but I'll go back and look deeper. I can't wait to get to the bottom of this matter. I'll keep you / everyone apprised, sound OK? Kentholke (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: - I just received an email response from a librarian at the EPA's AWBERC Library. She wrote:


 * Thank you for your email. Unfortunately, I was unable to find any further information about Sweden's ban of CFC's in 1978 except that one press release provided by the Environmental Protection Agency. Please direct your questions to...


 * She went on to give me the contact info for a woman who is the media contact for air quality, as well as several other contacts to try. I'll email the first one but I have a sinking suspicion that she won't know anything about a thirty year old release. Anyway, I'm going to remove the Sweden for now, then continue searching Kentholke (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Cosmic Ray reaction mechanism (vs Photochemical Model)
One of my professors, along with other scientists, have been conducting research that disputes the photochemical model and argues for a mechanism driven by cosmic ray activity. This new model has been steadily gaining support and a paper on some of the results was published lately in Physical Review Letters. I feel there should be a section about this new model on this Wiki article, but I don't think I'm the most suitable candidate to explain the mechanism clearly... Could someone who's more talented fill this task?Another reference point is  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.146.216 (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

citecheck tag in Misconceptions section
Is there a reason this tag is here? The sources actually look pretty consistent with the text, and I can't seem to find any discussion on the Talk page as to why it was added in the first place. It seems to me that it could be removed. -- Deville (Talk) 21:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I also can't see why that was there and removed it. If someone feels there is a problem with this section, please discuss it on the talk page. Thanks.  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 20:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Plankton
I've removed the unsourced plankton thing. It appears to be based on speculative statements in a 2002 paper by a team at Johns Hopkins. Research almost certainly has not shown this to be the case. It may be the case. The fact that we now have plankton suggests that plankton can survive whatever catastrophe occurred millions of years ago. --TS 01:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)