Ozone hole: Why Antarctic wildlife is being ‘sunburnt’
By Paul Homewood
h/t Philip Bratby/Paul Kolk
In BBC world, everything bad is due to climate change!
For Antarctic wildlife, exposure to the Sun’s damaging rays has increased in recent years, scientists say.
A hole in the ozone layer – the protective barrier of gas in the upper atmosphere – now lingers over the frozen continent for more of the year.
A major cause of ozone loss is believed to be the amount of smoke from unprecedented Australian wildfires, which were fuelled by climate change.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68906013
As we know, the 2019 drought was far from being unprecedented in SE Australia, the region worse affected, so climate change had no effect. Instead there is plenty of evidence that poor forestry management was the biggest factor.
In fact the paper itself makes no claims about “unprecedented Australian wildfires”, and the factors behind ozone loss are much more complex and nuanced than the BBC reports. In particular, La Nina, the polar vortex and the Hunga-Tongo volcano all play a role alongside Australian bushfires. The BBC report makes no mention of any of these other factors.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gcb.17283
As with all these sort of studies, the scientists are only looking at a few years worth of data, so they have absolutely no idea whether similar cycles of ozone loss occurred naturally and regularly in the past.
But that is of no concern to the BBC, who would rather persuade you that Antarctic animals are being sunburnt because of your consumption of fossil fuels.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
You’re very polite and nice to those ‘scientists’ who only look at recent data. If they passed even just A-level science they’d know that – when the long term situation is studied, most modern ‘climate extremes’ are nothing of the sort.
Bang goes their ‘research’ funding!
xx
Thanks Paul
It was on the 7am radio news this morning (Tony Blackburn), I remember about 35 years ago the banning of CFCs for causing the hole in the ozone layer. That caused loads of problems in industry as Arklone, Genklene really good cleaning solvents were withdrawn, the safe propellent in aerosol sprays was replaced by Butane (crazy, they are flame throwers). So now it was not CFCs its CLIMATE CHANGE. You could not make up the total crap that is being pushed, how the hell do penguins suffer from UV exposure. Ever seen a sun tanned penguin?
I have a vague recollection that those international ‘experts’ held a self-congratulatory knees-up round about the millennium, celebrating the success of their dictats in reducing the ozone hole.
I can’t recall that anyone (not sure I can call them scientists) has ever said that there was a time when the ozone hole did not exist. If that time is known, how old is it? And how has the planet got by as a result?
From then we’ve got deluding ‘acid rain’ composites.
The data shows the Ozone hole isn’t healing (https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/) so that is a non-science answer by the BBC. Because the Montreal Protocol getting rid of CFCs is supposed to be the proof of model for IPCC on carbon dioxide/ methane, the science activists need to hang their hat on a new cause.
So much for follow the science and trust models.
Yep!!! I looked at the title and said, “here we go again”. They must think people forget and just recycle an old hoax.
As the sun is never overhead in Antarctica ultraviolet light from our star can never directly affect the continent.
Some discussion of this topic in a recent paper cited here…
https://phys.org/news/2023-11-antarctic-ozone-hole-deeper-mid-spring.html
One academic in Australia ‘was not convinced by the study’s results.’
Can the BBC get any worse? Probably not as it must be near rock-bottom. I remain convinced that BBC reporters (or what other titles they use) get a bonus for every time they blame something on “climate change”.
The true reason for Global Brightening is the laws in the 1980s enforcing scrubbers on coal power stations. (Due to the acid rain scare.)
Global dimming since the 1950s was (so they say) caused by sulphur dioxide emitted by power stations. Sulphur dioxide is a good reflector of insolation. Since scrubbers were added across the world, this has led to a global brightening.
Further brightening may be apparent due to the recent banning of that disgusting fuel-oil in ships (basically tar). I think about 20% of sulphur emissions was coming from shipping.
Ralph
Ralph, sorry, but that story does not really add up.
ie What caused the “early brightening” up to 1950 when coal was being burnt in open fires the whole time.
The dimming started in the 1950s and showed no real change in trend until the 1980s and 1956 is when the first “clean air act” was introduced.
The dimming/brightening looks cyclical at about 70 years.
It is a shame we do not have a longer record.
They said th 1980s brightening was due to the requirement for power station scrubbers. The 1950s clean air act was mostly for city hearth fires, I believe.
Yes, the 1968 clean air act was introduced for furnaces and smoke stacks etc.
There was another one introduced in 1993 that covered particles in the air.
Take a look at the anti-correlation between cloud cover and temperatures here. Less cloud = Brighter.
His website has masses of interesting data.
http://www.climate4you.com/
“The dimming/brightening looks cyclical at about 70 years.”
Very similar to to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, in fact.
I suggest a new law banning wild bush fires. problem solved.
simples.
No need to thank me.
Australian wildfires, which were fuelled by climate change.
Who knew climate change was flammable?
Utter nonsense. From ‘scientists.’
The 2019 bushfires in Australia were caused mainly by 2 very dry years, which followed some normal years. Massive amounts of fuel build-up occurred in those previous years, and nothing was done about it.
The actual area burnt was nowhere near a historic maximum,, but the areas burnt just happened to be near towns. There was nothing “unprecedented” about the 2019 Australian bushfires.
If it was “climate change” why hasn’t there been a strong fire season since then… although fuel is starting to build up in many areas again.
Because environmentalist whackoes discovered they could get the world to take action on bogus environmental crap, setting the stage for ‘climate change’ the very next year. The ‘ozone hole’ gave us ‘climate change.’
Cirrusly? What the heck is a ‘climate change biologist?’ One who discovers there is more money in climate change than in biology?
Exactly how are blue whales damaged by the Sun’s (sic) rays?
How are bird feathers damaged by the Sun’s (sic) rays?
Anthropomorphism. BBC expects you to assume that the sun’s rays affect Antarctica’s sparse wildlife the same as it affects you. It’s BS. A ‘climate change biologist’ should know better.
Tell us, Dr Robinson, what species is affected, and how?
When the planets magnetic field weakens it allows more solar particles and cosmic rays to penetrate into the atmosphere. These particles destroy ozone.
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/WMM/data/WMMReports/WMM_Annual_Report_2023.pdf
Our planet is currently undergoing a geomagnetic excursion.
Remember the Australian who was fined thousands of dollars for creating a fire break round his house? He had the last laugh when the rest of the buildings burned down and his didn’t.
Most bush fires are caused by bad management, and the increasing damage they cause is down to the bad practice of building next to trees.
This news will surely trouble the continent’s new residents who are due to arrive in less than six years…
‘Climate change study predicts refugees fleeing into Antarctica’ [October 2008]:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3353247/Climate-change-study-predicts-refugees-fleeing-into-Antarctica.html
I will pay the one-way ticket for any climate alarmist to move to Antartica, don’t delay, offer only applies to the first 20 applicants.
There is no hole in the ozone layer, never has been. There is seasonal thinning and it occurs over Antarctica because of the extreme cold down there. The “hole” has always been blamed on CFC’s, now it’s smoke particles? For some time the ozone hole hasn’t been doing what they were predicting. They have always claimed a massive regulatory success from the Montreal Protocol, but as Homer Simpson might say, “it gets bigger, it gets smaller – doh!”
Some background and history here: “CFC’s and the UN – Another Day Another Dollar”
https://web.archive.org/web/20190502213154/http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/science-papers/originals/another-day-another-dollar
I can add a little bit, Dennis. I met Dupont’s principal Freon scientists around 1990, and discussed the alleged ozone hole with them. It was classic corporatism. They said they had the science to prove Freon was blameless*, but . . . marketing told them to STFU!!! Dupont was being pounded mercilessly by the press, making defending themselves impossible. So they quit the fight, and we got the Montreal Protocols and then Climate Change.
In the years after that, Dupont (and GE) drifted into classic crony capitalism with the Federal government. Dupont played along with the fascist feds, having realized from the Freon mess that the government is going to fiercely regulate everything, so it is better to cooperate with them and even assist with creating regulation, to improve their position over competitors, and to completely bar any new entries into the field – capital intensive requirements prevent little guys from getting into the businss.
*I sure wish I had asked them for some of what that science was. Could have been very handy over the years.
Interesting that, many years ago in NZ we would often hear how it was a New Zealander that discovered the ozone hole but after I finally got some internet speed and did a little research I found that while that had some credibility there was something more interesting, in that there was an American scientist that had already predicted it’s existence well before it’s “discovery” and the prediction was based on natural atmospheric physics or phenomenon and not human made gases.
A while back I tried to gather again all that info but Google did not want to help and another learning experience.
Years ago a friend told me not to waste my time saving what I found to discs as the internet will always hold what I was looking at at that time.
He sure got that wrong.
On 16 September 1987 CFCs were banned as the sole cause of the “Ozone Hole”. Now it’s bushfires that are causing the problem. However the largest known area burnt was between 100–117 million hectares (250–290 million acres), impacting approximately 15 per cent of Australia’s physical land mass, during the 1974-1975 bushfire season. A further 45,000,000 hectares in 1969-70 and 40,000,000 hectares in 1968-9. Things were fairly quiet until this century.
If smoke from the alleged “unprecedented” fires are creating an ozone hole again.
Why were the fires in the late 1960s and early 1970s not responsible for the previous damage?
Leave on long enough until it’s old news then quietly take it off.
BBC removes Laura Kuenssberg episode after complaint over Chris Packham comments
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/26/bbc-laura-kuenssberg-episode-chris-packham-complaint/
Freon R12 was banned because the patent had expired and they needed to promote newer patented products at higher prices. They are replacing the replacement for the same reason. They use products that do not work as well, cost more and are more dangerous, but the price goes up faster. The ozone hole actually got smaller before there was time to remove R12 from the market.
They frighten people in order to gain power and riches.
Pure bullshit, pope.
Yes it is, good for their stockholders, bad for other taxpayers and consumers.
Okay. What patent and when did it expire?
In the late 1960’s, early 1970’s, I took classes in Air Conditioning Repair, one for home AC and one for automotive AC and I did some diagnosis and repair of AC, mostly automotive. When products are patented, the companies that produce and sell the products either own the patents or pay royalties to the companies that sell the products. There was no current patent on R12 and the cost of it was low, a 16 ounce can was 25 or 50 cents and in bulk it was much more affordable than that, the coolant was a minor cost in any AC repair. When the ban was imposed, there were restrictions on buying R12 and the cost of the replacement, R134a, was much higher. I took a class and got certified to buy R12 because all our vehicles used that then. The certification never expires and I still have the certification card to buy R12. It is really expensive because of the ban. I had two cars that used R12 and I did have them both converted to R134a. Now, new cars use a another different propellant, I they are saying R134a causes problems, the new propellant may be made from fossil fuel.
https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-freon-4072212
They wrote:
Most uses of CFCs are now banned or severely restricted by the Montreal Protocol, because of the ozone depletion. Brands of Freon containing hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) instead have replaced many uses, but they, too, are under strict control under the Kyoto protocol, as they are deemed “super-greenhouse effect” gasses. They are no longer used in aerosols, but to date, no suitable, general use alternatives to the halocarbons have been found for refrigeration that is not flammable or toxic, problems the original Freon was devised to avoid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon
Just realize they use the fear of the harm to tax and control populations, even when the harm is a total lie. Ozone hole, Man Made Climate Change, Covid, Covid-Vax, Green Energy, Sea Level Rise, Coral Bleaching, overall, it is overwhelming. If you look, there are really good people pushing back on every one of this alarmist topics. The people promoting these scares are organized and well funded, the people trying to expose the lies are isolated and pushing back with little support or organized effort from the many others who are pushing back on another of their lies.
I am not a patent lawyer, I do know patents run out and then every competitor can produce the product and lower the price and increase the availability. The most powerful companies have a lot of resources they can and do have to prevent any of this taking away from their current and future profits and successes.
There is a basic, well known, not officially documented, rule. If you want to market an inferior product, you must frighten or ban all from using the superior product in use. Coal almost never fails, it must be banned, oil almost never fails, it must be banned, natural gas is right good but there are many things that can disrupt delivery of natural gas, use it for transition but promote enough outages to keep it looking bad.
I may have got some of this wrong, but I think I got most of it right.
When people are trying to frighten you and the result is they make more money and gain more power and you pay more for whatever was involved in the issue, they are bad people who are scamming us.
Alex Pope
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Conspiracy theory nonsense. This is a well-known Internet hoax.
In fact, I first heard of it in the late 1970s, pre-Internet.
yes, this was called a hoax long ago,
When they tell you stuff to tax and control you and outlaw stuff that works and replaces it with stuff that brings them more profits and power, they naturally, always, declare anything that disagrees with their schemes is some kind or hoax.
If what they were doing was correct, they would not likely need to accuse some ther agency of doing harm as it would likely be plain to see. as
Off topic, article from Daily Sceptic about the madness of the anti-nuclear brigade, and why “greens” should never be given control of energy policy:
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/04/27/new-document-release-reveals-greens-engaging-in-fraud-to-deceive-ministers-and-push-german-nuclear-phase-out/
Scientists and comedians join forces to get climate crisis message across | Climate crisis | The Guardian
scientists who dont know science and comedians who aren’t funny. splendid combination .
Anything starting ‘the BBC’, now goes directly into my shredder!
Observation of large and all-season ozone losses over the tropics
This paper reveals a large and all-season ozone hole in the lower stratosphere over the tropics (30°N–30°S) existing since the 1980s, where an O3 hole is defined as an area of O3 loss larger than 25% compared with the undisturbed atmosphere.
The depth of this tropical O3 hole is comparable to that of the well-known springtime Antarctic O3 hole, whereas its area is about seven times that of the latter.
Similar to the Antarctic O3 hole, approximately 80% of the normal O3 value is depleted at the center of the tropical O3 hole.
The results strongly indicate that both Antarctic and tropical O3 holes must arise from an identical physical mechanism, for which the cosmic-ray-driven electron reaction model shows good agreement with observations.
The whole-year large tropical O3 hole could cause a great global concern as it can lead to increases in ground-level ultraviolet radiation and affect 50% of the Earth’s surface area, which is home to approximately 50% of the world’s population.
Moreover, the presence of the tropical and polar O3 holes is equivalent to the formation of three “temperature holes” observed in the stratosphere. These findings will have significances in understanding planetary physics, ozone depletion, climate change, and human health.
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/article/12/7/075006/2818805/Observation-of-large-and-all-season-ozone-losses
If you read the article, it has literally no evidence of any harm.
“..but researchers do not yet know if the same is true for Antarctic mammals and birds.
It’s likely that anything covered by fur and feathers – seals and penguins – would be protected, explained Prof Robinson.”
And it’s not science:
“In their paper, Prof Robinson and her colleagues combed through all the studies they could find about the effect of UV on Antarctic plants and animals.”
And they didn’t even find any!
This is simply a scare story based on activists trawling through actual research then saying “bad things could happen.”
Utterly awful propaganda.
The original claim was based on – you guessed it – a computer model of “what must have happened.” In any case the suggestion was merely to the effect that the fires in Australia in 21019 affected the ozone layer in Antarctica in just one year, 2020, by expanding the seasonal “ozone hole” by 10%.
Yet the size of the “ozone hole” in millions of square kilometers, according to NASA, has been, for the last ten years:
2014 20.9
2015 25.6
2016 20.7
2017 17.4
2018 22.9
2019 9.3 (the containing vortex broke down, as happens occasionally)
2020 23.5
2021 23.3
2022 23.2
2023 23.1
How can there be an effect (increased sunburn, forsooth) if the cause (hole bigger than usual) is non-existent?
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/statistics/annual_data.html
It is worth noting the utterly childish “thinking” in the following PR piece from MIT:
https://news.mit.edu/2023/study-smoke-particles-wildfires-erode-ozone-0308#:~:text=by%20Joshua%20Stevens.-,Edited%20by%20MIT%20News.,the%20sun’s%20damaging%20ultraviolet%20radiation.
How the mighty are fallen! But it is all It good in a way. One simply does not need to worry about any modern finding from the academia swamp. Twenty years ago I sometimes took seriously what came out of it.
Oh for heaven’s sake! More studious ignoring of the elephant in the room. The BBC downplays ‘volcanic eruptions’ to focus exclusively on the ‘climate caused Australian wildfires’ and the just published study they are citing refers only to the “aerosols” from the Hunga Tonga eruption. BUT, it was the UNPRECEDENTED injection of water vapour high into the stratosphere (reaching as far as the mesopshere) which triggered the initial rapid depletion of stratospheric ozone in 2022 (in addition to the aerosols) and it’s very likely that, for this year and the next few, that WATER VAPOUR will CONTINUE to deplete ozone above the Antarctic. This is all in the scientific literature for those who can be bothered to look, but if it doesn’t fit the climate crisis narrative or even the conventional atmospheric science narrative, then I guess it’s verboten. More to the point, the increasing humidification of the tropical troposphere MAY be responsible for a long term (decadal scale) humidification of the stratosphere above, resulting in a downward trend in Antarctic ozone. This is something which should be explored. The Ship of Fools sails ever onward.