So the Danes made first trip through the Northwest Passage. Any guess on the cargo?

[Andre]

Ozone Hole Science Revisited - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Current science puts the whole CFC/Ozone depletion theory on its ear. We simply don't understand these things nearly as well as we think we do.

Interesting read thanks.

I think from what I've read; beef farts and open air dumps that are not capped off and burned or collected - methane emissions are also a factor as well as jet engines, aside from industry and car fume.

Most of those are poison gas and rarley occur naturally from volcanoes and the like, so really you have to conclude the majority is probably fucking over the natural balance somewhat; dont you recon?

Also logic sort of points to that we've dropped immisions and the hole has shrunk some.

Its not 'on its ear' either when you read the last few paragraphs of both the scientist -Rex and the authors note.

Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question, Rex stresses. "Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions."
Of course, it may be that Rex's research has gone wrong somehow or that another chemical mechanism involving CFCs will turn out to be chiefly responsible for ozone depletion. Nevertheless, it is good to keep in mind that all scientific results are provisional and may change in the light of new evidence.






By the way, for anyone who cares about my own take on the ozone hole/CFC issue, in chapter 8 of my 1993 book, Eco-Scam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse, I concluded:

Despite a great deal of continuing scientific uncertainty, it appears that CFCs do contribute to the creation of the Antarctic ozone hole and perhaps to a tiny amount of global ozone depletion. If CFCs were allowed to build up in the atmosphere during the next century, ozone depletion might eventually entail significant costs. More ultraviolet light reaching the surface would require adaptation—switching to new crop varieties, for example—and it might boost the incidence of nonfatal skin cancer. In light of these costs, it makes sense to phase out the use of CFCs.