Is there an ozone hole over Antarctica? What is the science? What doubts have been raised?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
People have debated the size, severity, and cause of the ozone hole over Antarctica for years. Historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway claim in their book Merchants of Doubt<\/em> that some individuals and groups have sought to discredit some of the science because they believe it is a threat to their agenda.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Read more to learn about the debate surrounding the ozone hole over Antarctica.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n By 1985, the scientific community thought that the science of ozone was fairly well understood. Scientists understood the nitrogen and chlorine reactions, and a shuttle flight had confirmed that the chemicals predicted to exist in the stratosphere actually did.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Then, the British Antarctic Survey announced that they\u2019d found a large ozone-depleted area over Antarctica. <\/strong>They\u2019d actually found it back in 1981, but they didn\u2019t believe their results because nothing currently known about ozone chemistry could explain them, so they studied for another four years before announcing their discovery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Other scientists didn\u2019t believe the results either. In addition to having no chemical explanation, there were two other reasons to doubt them:<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, when NASA\u2019s Richard Stolarski rechecked the satellite data, he found that the instrument actually had <\/em>picked up the depletion, but the concentrations were so low that the instrument\u2019s programming and scientists working with it assumed that the data was bad<\/strong> and the instrument faulty. The instrument wasn\u2019t <\/em>faulty, and there really was an ozone hole over Antarctica. An area where the ozone concentration was below 150 Dobson units covered the entirety of the continent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n No one knew why or how the ozone hole over Antarctica had appeared, but they did know that it was a problem\u2014if it got much bigger, it would overlap with populated areas of Australia and South America, exposing people in these countries to UV radiation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To find out more, NOAA and NASA sent two expeditions to Antarctica:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Almost every stratospheric scientist was involved with the study and by 1986, there were two theories for what had created the ozone hole over Antarctica.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 1987, the AAOE found that the hole was created by <\/strong>both <\/em><\/strong>CFC breakdown and the Antarctic\u2019s weather.<\/strong> There are two weather effects unique to the Antarctic:<\/p>\n\n\n\n While the U.S. had banned CFCs in 1979, Europe and the Soviet Union hadn\u2019t, and global emissions were increasing. In 1987, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) put together the Montreal Protocol, which required that nations cut CFC emissions in half over a long period of time.<\/strong> It also required nations to meet regularly to consider new evidence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In 1987, Fred Singer argued that ozone depletion was natural and scientists were using \u201cthe ozone scare\u201d to get more funding.<\/strong> He published an article in the Wall Street Journal<\/em> in which he emphasized uncertainty, accused scientists of being self-serving and politically motivated, and tried to distract the public. <\/p>\n\n\n\n He wrote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n As Singer had pointed out, there were still uncertainties in ozone science. For example, the ground-based instruments didn\u2019t agree with satellite-based ones, and no one knew which was right. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Robert Watson established the Ozone Trends Panel to address some of the uncertainty. <\/strong>In 1988, the panel found that it was the satellite\u2019s numbers that were off but that they could be corrected. It also found that the models had underestimated the depletion. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Scientists also started studying the Arctic for two reasons:<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 1988, scientists found that there wasn\u2019t a hole but there was depletion:<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 1988, Singer tried to publish a letter to explain his <\/em>theory of what had caused the ozone hole over Antarctica\u2014natural climate variability that resulted in warming of the Earth\u2019s surface and cooling of the stratosphere.<\/strong> (Cooler temperatures speed up the reactions that destroy ozone.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Since the variability was natural, it would eventually tip back the other way and return ozone levels to what they had been previously. Nothing had to change. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Singer cherry-picked sections of two papers that discussed the relationship between surface warming and stratospheric cooling to support his position.<\/strong> (If read in full, both these papers discussed why warming of the surface and cooling of the stratosphere weren\u2019t<\/em> natural.) But Singer just cited the parts that worked for him:<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1. V. Ramanathan <\/strong>predicted that as more heat was trapped closer to Earth\u2019s surface in the troposphere, less would make it into the stratosphere, so it would cool. <\/p>\n\n\n\n 2. James E. Hansen<\/strong> made a graph of unnatural surface warming and Singer used the graph to suggest that it was <\/em>natural.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Singer\u2019s theory wasn\u2019t impossible, but it discounted 10 years of evidence, and <\/strong>Science <\/em><\/strong>refused to publish Singer\u2019s letter.<\/strong> He eventually published in EOS<\/em>, the American Geophysical Union\u2019s newsletter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Watson of the Ozone Trends Panel organized the Airborne Arctic Stratospheric Expedition (AASE). A plane flew out of Norway throughout January and February 1989, and scientists found that the nitrogen and chlorine levels were similar to the Antarctic. The last flight found that chlorine monoxide concentrations were actually higher <\/em>than in the south. However, the Arctic\u2019s vortex wasn\u2019t as strong and it wasn\u2019t as cold as Antarctica, so that\u2019s why there wasn\u2019t a hole.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In 1989, Singer wrote a doubt-mongering letter in National Review <\/em>that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n It was now clear that CFCs were damaging the ozone layer, and regulations could be based on evidence rather than the predictions. The CFC industry realized they were damaging the ozone layer and stopped fighting. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 1990, the Montreal Protocol banned the creation of CFCs and other chlorine-releasing chemicals.<\/strong> The deadlines ranged from 2000-2040. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Scientists kept researching ozone depletion and the atmosphere, but mainly because they were concerned about CFC substitutes and their meteorological effects, not because there was any doubt that CFCs damage the stratosphere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It was common in the early 1990s for capitalists to believe regulating the environment would lead to socialism, and Singer and other MODs didn\u2019t give up. The Marshall Institute, Washington Times<\/em>, National Review,<\/em> and other anti-Communist or pro-business publications published Singer, and other scientists joined him to blame ozone depletion on volcanoes (even though scientists had cleared up the volcano question years earlier).<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 1993, Sherry Rowland started to worry about the spread of this inaccurate information and tried to clear things up in a presidential address by re-explaining the science of volcanoes and how chlorine reaches the stratosphere. It didn\u2019t take\u2014the media had spread Ray\u2019s information to the general public.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n From 1994-1995, Singer kept repeating his claims and in 1995 acted as a witness in congressional hearings on \u201cscientific integrity.\u201d Singer said that Robert Watson\u2019s testimony was inaccurate and ozone depletion wasn\u2019t a problem.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Then, Sherry Rowland and two other scientists won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry <\/strong>for their work on ozone in the stratosphere, which clearly demonstrated that their science was widely accepted. Singer responded by attacking the Nobel committee for making a political statement.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Montreal Protocol held and CFCs stayed banned, but Singer\u2019s work definitely had an effect\u2014politicians still trusted him, and Ray and Singer\u2019s claims that scientists were untrustworthy and crooked was hard to shake and would persist into the future.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Is there an ozone hole over Antarctica? What is the science? What doubts have been raised? People have debated the size, severity, and cause of the ozone hole over Antarctica for years. Historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway claim in their book Merchants of Doubt that some individuals and groups have sought to discredit some of the science because they believe it is a threat to their agenda. Read more to learn about the debate surrounding the ozone hole over Antarctica.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":42358,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,160],"tags":[427],"class_list":["post-42351","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-history","category-science","tag-merchants-of-doubt","","tg-column-two"],"yoast_head":"\nDiscovery of the Ozone Hole Over Antarctica<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Further Exploration of the Science<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Policy and Public Action<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The MOD’s Response<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Further Exploration of the Science<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Arctic Expeditions<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The MOD\u2019s Response<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Further Scientific Exploration<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The MOD’s Response<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Policy and Public Action<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Further Scientific Exploration<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The MOD’s Response<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Setting the Record Straight<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The MOD’s Response<\/h3>\n\n\n\n