Both ozone depletion and global warming  have a common cause which is  human activities that release pollutants into the atmosphere. Ozone hole may not be the major cause behind climate change. There is an international agreement called the Montreal Protocol 1987  was  achieved and  fixed the ozone hole . The total solve of ozone depletion  might remains elusive target . I think the more  significant on climate change in current time is the global warming problem.

Both ozone depletion and global warming  have a common cause which is  human activities that release pollutants into the atmosphere. Ozone hole may not be the major cause behind climate change. There is an international agreement called the Montreal Protocol 1987  was  achieved and  fixed the ozone hole . The total solve of ozone depletion  might remains elusive target . I think the more  significant on climate change in current time is the global warming problem.

Dear Hassan 

A very convincing answer. Best regards. 

Hi there,

I think both the Global Warming or the Hole in the Ozone Layer.But I think the warming is more prevalent, and the absence of strict conditions on industrialized countries to reduce the emissions leads to climate change.

Regards,

Thanks a lot, dear Qhatan Adnan Yousif for your valuable comment. Regards

Both are equally important. O3 depleting chemicals are nothing but greenhouse gases like CH4, N2O and CFCs. When they are present in troposphere they absorb IR thus increasing global temperature. Moreover, when they enter into polar stratosphere through vortex they deplete O3 forming O3 hole thus more penetration of uv rays to our planet resulting in global warming

Dear Bhattacharya Kashinath

Remind you that you forgot the main Green House Gas (GHG), CO2 which is the main reason of Global Warming yet it is not related to Ozone Layer Depletion. Regards

Dear Dr. Kenneth M. Towe

It was so long since we have the honor to hear you, You are right, but let us take the Countries that lie in the zone of that you call ( one pole ), they suffered from detrimental effects in the skin ( especially CANCER) due to the UV ray. This was documented. I totally agree with you that GLOBAL WARMING is more significant. Regards

Dear Kenneth M. Towe

Recalling your phrase( Nabeel... Where was that documented? ), here is a report from EPA ( which is one of thousands of reports) as an answer to your question:-

https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/health-and-environmental-effects-ozone-layer-depletion

Here is another one:-

http://www.7continents5oceans.com/ozone-layer-depletion-causes-effects-and-solutions

If you need more then I am ready as an Environmental and Sanitary Engineer. Regards Sir

I am awaiting you Kenneth M.Towe, don't go far, here are some reports concerning your answer:-

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/air-pollution/issues/ozone-layer/depletion-impacts/health-environmental-effects.html

https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/causes-and-effects-of-ozone-hole.php

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

Regards

This Technical Report is from New Zealand:-

Technical Report New Zealands Environmental Reporting Series: Our Atmosphere ...

I agree with the views of the professors Nabeel Hameed Al-Saati and Hassan Alshamsi

My friend Kenneth M Towe

Firstly I did not say anything about the pole I repeated what you said ( one pole), this recorded up. Secondly you are citing an old article from a british journal for the period 1957-1984 while I am citing the EPA + NASA reports uptodate about the ozone layer depletion and its relation to skin cancer, here is one sentence from the EPA site:-

Studies have shown that in the Antarctic, the amount of UVB measured at the surface can double during the annual ozone hole.

Here is another sentence:-

Ozone layer depletion increases the amount of UVB that reaches the Earth’s surface. Laboratory and epidemiological studies demonstrate that UVB causes non-melanoma skin cancer and plays a major role in malignant melanoma development. In addition, UVB has been linked to the development of cataracts, a clouding of the eye’s lens.

Which is better uptodate report from EPA or an old article dated in the year 1992?

Now refer to the technical report by New Zealand it is talking about the relation between ozone depletion and skin cancer now beginning from the year 2005. Check them and I am ready to hear your criticism. Best regards.

My friend Kenneth M Towe

You keep runing away from the truth of EPA, NASA and the Technical report about New Zealand towards some old article or let us say some old stories to prove your opinion. Are these reports false or do you want me to go the Hospitals to prove the relation between skin cancer and depletion of the Ozone Layer? You are not better than EPA or NASA. Please let us argue no more it is a useless argument. Good luck

Dear Nabeel Hameed Al-Saati

In my opinion,global warming will be more significant contributor of climate change on earth. Even though global emissions of climate-warming carbon dioxide remained static in 2016, a welcome sign that the world is making at least some progress in the battle against global warming by halting the long-term rising trend, according to data published by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (NEAA). However mainly developing nations, still have rising rates of CO2 emissions. Stalled global emissions still means huge amounts of CO2 are being added to the atmosphere every year – more than 35bn tonnes in 2016 – driving up global temperatures and increasing the risk of damaging, extreme weather. Furthermore, other heat-trapping greenhouse gases, mainly methane from cattle and leaks from oil and gas exploration, are still rising and went up by 1% in 2016.

But, here's a rare victory for the environment we can all celebrate (although Still more need to achieve): The hole in the ozone layer is the smallest it's been since 1988. (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ozone-hole-smallest-30-years-though-humanity-cant-take-credit-180967082/)

The biggest threat from the ozone hole is a result of our taking measures to attack its cause, the Montreal Treaty to ban CFCs. This has led to the belief that we would also take action to ban the production of CO2 and so deal with the threat from global warming.

That complacency has led us into a situation where the the results of global warming will now be catastrophic, e.g. a 10m sea level rise is now inevitable as the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets are melting at current levels of CO2. There seems little prospect of stopping the increase far less bringing them back down to levels where these ice sheets would stop melting.

Hi,

Both ozone depletion and global warming are the consequences of human pollution. Both are a serious problems must be solved or mitigated.

With my best regards!

Dr. Adel OUESLATI

Dear Dr. Kenneth,

Thanks for the reply.

I suggest that all countries of the world come together through an international agreement that allows the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases. I know that it is difficult for such a type of agreement to take place, indeed, on a day given by the fact that the proposal presented affects, inter alia, the interests of "polluting" industrialists. These manufacturers, in general, refuse to change polluting manufacturing processes by those who respect the environmental rules, for example replace a fuel oil boiler (hydrocarbon) by a boiler operating with solar or wind energy, ...

In addition, the search for a solution to the warming of the earth is a necessity to safeguard the environment and humans. Otherwise, there is a risk in the long term, the disappearance of the human element.

Best regards.

Adel

Thanks a lot dear Kandan, dear Alastair and dear Adel for your valuable comments and contributions. Best regards.

Kenneth,

You wrote " You seem unaware that the countries of the world have already come together...in Paris."

You seem to be unaware the President Trump is withdrawing the USA, the second largest polluter, from that agreement.

I totally agree with you dear Alastair. Best regards.

As for me I will never argue with you Kenneth M Towe, as you follow your opinion without relying to the present scientific research. Best regards.

Kenneth,

You could start by reading this: http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/introduction

and item Z "Can we reverse global warming" here:

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/appendices/faqs

Excellent dear Alastair Bain McDonald, this is a rich peer reviewed scientific research work that could not be rejected by any scientist, thanks a lot for your distinguished selection. Regards

Dear Alastair

You and all the audience are free to accept or reject this report by World Health Organization (WHO) relating the Ozone Layer Depletion and health effects. Here is a part of it:-

Stratospheric ozone depletion, ultraviolet radiation and health

Strictly, stratospheric ozone depletion is not part of “global climate change”, which occurs in the troposphere. There are, however, several recently described interactions between ozone depletion and greenhouse gas-induced warming.

Scientists 100 years ago would have been incredulous at the idea that, by the late twentieth century, humankind would be affecting the stratosphere. Yet, remarkably, human-induced depletion of stratospheric ozone has recently begun – after 8,000 generations of Homo sapiens.

Stratospheric ozone absorbs much of the incoming solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR), especially the biologically more damaging, shorter-wavelength, UVR. We now know that various industrial halogenated chemicals such as the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs – used in refrigeration, insulation and spray-can propellants) and methyl bromide, while inert at ambient Earth-surface temperatures, react with ozone in the extremely cold polar stratosphere. This destruction of ozone occurs especially in late winter and early spring.

During the 1980s and 1990s at northern mid-latitudes (such as Europe), the average year-round ozone concentration declined by around 4% per decade: over the southern regions of Australia, New Zealand, Argentina and South Africa, the figure approximated 6-7%. Estimating the resultant changes in actual ground-level ultraviolet radiation remains technically complex. However, exposures at northern mid-latitudes, for example, are likely to peak around 2020, with an estimated 10% increase in effective ultraviolet radiation relative to 1980s levels (1).

In the mid-1980s, governments recognised the emerging hazard from ozone depletion. The Montreal Protocol of 1987 was adopted, widely ratified, and the phasing out of major ozone-destroying gases began. The protocol was tightened in the 1990s. Scientists anticipate a slow but near-complete recovery of stratospheric ozone by the middle of the twenty-first century.

Main types of health impacts

The range of certain or possible health impacts of stratospheric ozone depletion are listed in Table 8.1, with a summary evaluation of the evidence implicating UVR in their causation.

http://www.who.int/globalchange/summary/en/index7.html

Regards

I agree with Nabeel's posting and with Kenneth that his claims about ozone are widely ignored by Scientists. There seems to be no mentioning or support for this in any recent review as well as text books.

Thanks a lot dear Kenneth M Towe and Henrik Rasmus Andersen. Best regards.

Very interesting dear Kenneth M Towe. Best regards.

It is false that the theory of ozone depletion requires that ClO· peak in the ozone layer.

It is completely irrelevant for the chemical reactions that the concentration of ClO· is in another altitude. ClO· participate in many other chemical reactions (O·) than those with ozone which explain why it peaks higher in the stratosphere.

The ozone consuming reactions include ClO· and as the figure Q8 (from an unknown source) shows there is ClO· present there the ozone layer is.

The ozone destruction requires the presence of ClO·, which is also shown to occur through the entire ozone layer in the figure you gave. The basic reason for all the textbooks, reviews and Montreal protocol agreeing with me and disagreeing with you is that we can recognise this. Essentially we are not denying simple measured data.

CHEMISTRY OF THE OZONE LAYER DEPLETION. Dear audience, I would like to point to the above subject by referring to the following link:-

https://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry/Kinetics/Case_Studies%3A_Kinetics/Depletion_of_the_Ozone_Layer

Best regards.

It doesn't matter if there is a higher fraction of ClO· at higher altitude or that some chlorine is found in other species in the ozone layer. That matters is that there is ClO· through the ozone layer. The reason that all recent literature agree with me that CFC cause ozone depletion.

Your claim that a higher fraction of ClO· higher in the stratosphere prevent the ClO· from destroying ozone lacks any mechanistic explanation. If I were to prepare two bottles, one with 1 g/L cyanide and another with 10 g/L, would you then drink the one with the lower concentration thinking the higher concentration of the latter renders the first harmless?

Kenneth, If you cannot drink the low concentration cyanide bottle you must agree that it is irrelevant how much ClO· there is at 40 km (above the ozone layer) for the effect of ClO· there the ozone layer is. The relevant fact is that ClO· exist there ozone is.

You state that CFC are not photolysed below 25 km, but the ozone layer goes higher than that. In your Q8 figure it is clear that organochlorine is converted to inorganic species starting below the ozone layer and being almost complete at the top of the ozone layer.

None of the literature you pick from conclude that CFCs doesn't degrade ozone.

Dear Henrik

Here is a real answer for my comment above (As for me I will never argue with you Kenneth M Towe, as you follow your opinion without relying to the present scientific research). Best regards.

You keep on focusing on old papers from a time then methods were incomplete. The dynamic balances between the radicals got much better thought the 1990'es so we can solve all issues by sticking to publications that are less than 20 years old. So far I don't think you found any.

Dear audience

Just cite the references that relate Ozone Layer Depletion to CFCs :

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/06/29/science.aae0061

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/warm-air-helped-make-2017-ozone-hole-smallest-since-1988

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/04/arctic_ozone_hole_causes_conce.html

Dear Dr.Al-Saati,

It is well known that CO2 (constitutes 50% of total GHG) is a greenhouse gas. But if you think about the global warming potential compared to CO2 =1, CH4 is 30 times, N2O is 270 times and CFCs are 4300-7100 times more potential. Hence I did not mention it.

It seems to be a cornerstone of your "evidence" to focus on outdated publications discussing problems that occurred in the development of the understanding of ozone depletion in the 1970-1980es. You cherry pick figures and short parts of the texts from papers that never proceed to suggest that their evidence prove that CFCs doesn't cause ozone depletion.

For the last 20 years these problems discussed in the old papers have been solved which you will read in the modern literature. I find your methodology very recognisable from other subjects of the denialism agenda.

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

http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/

Thanks a lot dear Eric L Peters. Regards

I totally agree with Eric L. Peters, any successful scientist must cite up to date scientific research (especially for a phenomena like Global Warming and Ozone Layer Depletion which are varying with time, space, temperature, latitude, longitude,..........). As what concerns the updated scientific research we experience it during or discussion committees for PhD STUDENTS and M.Sc STUDENTS. Regards

Dear All

All of the discussions are based on what happened in the past and about a phenomena that already exist (climate change).

How we can prove which one will be more significant on Climate change in the future?

Since the main reason of Global Warming and Hole in the Ozone Layer is human activities, and the type of activities are changing (by using new energy, by increase of electric vehicles, by more deforestation, more mining, more urbanization, more air, water, soil pollution, Etc.), and the trends for human activities are also totally different from the past decades.

Best Regards,

Pirouz

Dear Behrouz Pirouz

Yes, I agree with you and in the same direction we must trust with our abilities to search, explore and distinguish the real from false scientific facts. See for example:-

https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/ozone-layer-and-causes-of-ozone-depletion.php

http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-ozone-layer-importance-and-the-harmful-effects-of-thinning.html

Regards

The impact of increased surface temperatures is significant in itself. But global warming will have additional, far-reaching effects on the planet. Warming modifies rainfall patterns, amplifies coastal erosion, lengthens the growing season in some regions, melts ice caps and glaciers, and alters the ranges of some infectious diseases. Some of these changes are already occurring.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page6.php

Can we rely on letters as a peer reviewed scientific research? Dear audience, please give me a convincing answer. Do peer reviewed journals accept letters as a scientific research? Is it accepted in the scientific promotion of Universities?

Hi,

Both must be avoided or mitigated.

With my best regards!

Dr. Adel OUESLATI (Chemical engineering)

Regarding the reviewing of Kenneth's letter to Science it is at least reviewed by one or more journal editors. Reviewing in not to the same extend as a scientific paper. The reviewers can obviously only evaluate that is written in the manuscript, which in Kenneth's case wasn't that CFCs doesn't cause ozone depletion. If it had it should have been rejected. as that is nonsense and no evidence to support that is presented while evidence to the contrary is abundant in literature.

I read the letter back then it was published and I still see it the way that Science allowed Kenneth to criticize that another paper stated that the geographic extent of the Antarctic ozone hole was dependant on the CFC concentration which is wasn't at the time (still isn't) because there was more CFCs than was needed to form enough inorganic chlorine that could completely degrade the ozone inside the polar vortex. Therefore the size of the hole would be dependant on the size of the vortex which varies somewhat between winters depending on the weather. While Kenneth is correct in pointing to the error, this was well known at the time and the error in the article was just a sloppy choice of words. For this reason there has never been any citations of Kenneth's letter in any scientific papers.

The hope with the Montreal protocol is that eventually there will be so little CFCs that there isn't produced inorganic chlorine in the stratosphere and then ozone depletion will not occur inside the antarctic vortex in the winter and also not in then the Arctic.

Although I have not experienced publishing letters, but in my opinion I totally agree with the answer of Eric L Peters. If Kenneth M Towe published an article not a letter no one can doubt his results. I need the opinion of other audiences about the Ozone Layer hole.

I totally agree with Henrik Rasmus Andersen as regards his clear phrase (Regarding the reviewing of Kenneth's letter to Science it is at least reviewed by one or more journal editors. Reviewing in not to the same extend as a scientific paper. The reviewers can obviously only evaluate that is written in the manuscript, which in Kenneth's case wasn't that CFCs doesn't cause ozone depletion. If it had it should have been rejected.).

It is good to notice that despite your tireless effort the state of the world sometimes improve in large steps. The Montreal protocol of 1987 and Paris Accord of 2015 marks the beginning to solutions of some of Earth's largest environmental problems.

It would seem from the discussion above that rather than Nabeel confusing the effect of CFC on ozone with the size of ozone hole your are (purposely) replacing the no-effect of CFC concentration on the size of the antarctic ozone hole with the clear effect of CFCs on ozone depletion. Inside and outside of the Antarctic vortex.

The data you brought to the discussion (Q8) clearly shows ClO· being present thorough the entire ozone layer.

It remains a fact that nobody cares about your opinion on this as you don't include the findings of the last 25 years.

"perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date has been the Montreal Protocol" Kofi Annan (https://www.un.org/en/events/ozoneday/background.shtml).

It seems you want to get of the subject diversion you created by stating that CFC doesn't cause ozone depletion. "There was no NET loss of stratospheric ozone. Nor was it ever destroyed by chlorine from CFCs." Just redraw and we can move on.

It seems that your "new" outdated and unsourced "evidence" also have a tint of rot to it: It seem this is some Excel standard graph so it is hard not to suspect that you have been fabricating it by extracting data according to your own interpretation possible from the paper.

Article The 1985 chlorine and fluorine inventories in the stratosphe...

Generally it is known that gasses with fewer halogens are degraded by radical reactions below the ozone layer and then the halogens react with water and precipitates thus most of it doesn't harm the ozone layer. CFCs are not degraded by radicals and thus they can pass through the lower part of the ozone layer until low wavelength UV-radiation initiate their breakdown.

You try to sell that your figure (perhaps homecooked) shows "Chlorine in the stratosphere is produced by other man-made chemicals. In the Zander et al. paper I cited the data (available in their tables) show that ~30% of the inorganic chlorine was derived from CFCs, the remaining 70% is from the non-CFCs, methyl chloride, carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform." The reason is obviously that your figure allegedly covers the "production" of inorganic chlorine at 12.5-20 km hight which is an interval which is below most of the stratosphere (up to 50 km) and ozone layer (up to 35 km).

Dear Audience

What I can see from the discussion above concerning Ozone Layer Depletion, is that whenever Henrik Rasmus Andersen tries to discuss the subject scientifically with facts to make it clear then Kenneth M Towe goes to ambiguous facts that make the subject completely unclear. This is my opinion as scientific man. Secondly, the above criticism letter is not enough to be a source for citation by others, at least it is not an article or a peer reviewed paper.

Dear Eric L Peters

Kenneth M Towe, will now probably asks you ( where was that documented?)inspite the clear facts shown by you as he did above with me when I presented for him the reports from EPA, NASA and WHO!!! Although he is an American Citizen and these reports for him are false!!!! I totally agree with you. Best regards.

Excellent dear Eric L Peters, you and our dear colleague Henrik Rasmus Andersen for his compitence in the subject under study. Best regards.

Dear audience

Please refer to the links below to view the Countries suffering from Ozone Layer Depletion:-

http://www.ozonedepletion.co.uk/countries-risk-from-ozone-depletion.html

http://www.environment.gov.au/protection/ozone/ozone-science/ozone-layer

https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/hole_SH.html

Is the Ozone Hole healing or increasing?

Dear Nabeel,

"Global Warming or the Hole in the Ozone Layer - which is more significant on Climate change?" - a very good question that you have posted for discussion. Expert comments from several researchers - educative for all. Thanks to Nabeel for initiating the discussion on a highly relevant topic to global environment.

Dear audience

Really I did not understand the purpose of the above report by Kenneth M Towe. Please explain to me and give me the logical link with our question. Is this a solution to CO2 emissions? Or an addition of new hazard to the underground of our beautiful planet EARTH?

I believe that finally the greenhouse effect will predominate than the decrease of the ozone layer, for the following reasons:

This is the truth dear Eric L Peters. Let us speak logically with no (denialism), then to solve problems that are all man made not by GOD ALLAH. Best regards.