My Two Cents on Climate Change

My Two Cents on Climate Change

The ozone hole and polar vortex problems

Available data appear to agree that the main problems are at the poles, which experience substantial warming. This is caused by disuption of the (northern) polar vortex, a normally stable rotating mass of cold air, making it travel south sometimes, bringing abnormally cold weather with it, while abnormally warm weather from the south displaces it in the north. It seems that the farther south in the northern hemisphere, the more chaotic winter weather has become, including increasingly frequent record-breaking cold spells. Yet the warming change is clear in Chicago, which used to have very little snow until the late 1970s, when the city responded to an abrupt increase in snowfall by purchasing snowplows for the first time. This probably happened because snowfall is heaviest when the temperature is closest to freezing (which is why Antarctica is the driest continent.) Typical average high winter Chicago temperatures began to go higher at that time. In the Arctic, of course, scientists have documented massive melting of glaciers. As cold polar air breaks away and goes south, these northern regions become warmer but we farther south are getting some uncharacteristic cold spells in the winter.

And what causes the polar vortex disruption? The 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer agreement was an important first move to cut back on production of "anthropogenic ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) and some hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)". In a nutshell, these are halogenic molecules, i.e., substances in the stratosphere and the upper trophosphere containing fluorine, bromine, and chlorine (especially chlorine), which are broken down by ultraviolet radiation from outer space, releasing these atoms. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2025), "One chlorine atom can destroy over 100,000 ozone molecules before it is removed from the stratosphere." This is a problem because we need the ozone layer to deflect this ionizing ultraviolet radiation, which is theorized to cause currently chaotic changes in the polar vortex.

How does this happen? When chlorine atoms strike ozone atoms and knock an oxygen atom off, they do not join the molecule they react with, but simply keep moving, repeating this reaction with another ozone molecule. Because of this, they function as catalysts, which engage in repeated reactions without changing their constitution.

We have recent hard data regarding ODS and ozone levels, thanks to the World Meteorological Organization (2022); these data are presented as yearly data points with a spline curve fit superimposed on the graphs of ozone levels with extrapolated predictions of future data. "CFC-11 equivalent emission" peaked in the late 1980's at about 1.5 metric tons per year, sharply declined to 0.7 metric tons per year until about 1990, then continued to decline, but at a slower pace, to 0.2 metric tons per year. "Equivalent effective chlorine" peaked at around 1990 at about 4.5 parts per billion, then declined at mostly linear but slightly decreasing pace to about 2 parts per billion at 2021. But the situation was different for the ozone layer: "annual global ozone" measured between 60°S and 60°N latitudes dropped from about 290 to about 280 Dobson Units from 1980 to about 1995, then increased very little up to 2020. Much more dramatic was the drop in "Antarctica Total Ozone", measured between 70°S and 90°S latitudes; it dropped precipitously from about 350 Dobson Units in 1960 to about 140 Dobson Units in 1995, and then rose slightly through 2020 according to the spline curve, although the great difference in these extrapolating estimates for the years 2000 through 2020 lessens the certainty of that increase.

In essence, banning ODSs clearly slowed down the reduction in ozone levels, but it is less clear from examination of the raw data that the ozone layer will be restored naturally, at least within a reasonable period of time. The extrapolations of ozone levels appear to be very optimistic.

Meanwhile, interpretations of the polar vortex disruptions that depart from the above theory persist in circulating. For example, Walker (2026) gives an explanation that does not mention ODSs, but simply blames the problem on the planet's heating up. He notes that cold goes south while the polar north heats up, but offers no mechanism to explain these dynamics.

The elephant in the room: the more local effects of population growth and of higher standards of living

It's inevitable that population growth will mean more energy usage. In addition, as more people who were not using enough energy to meet their survival and comfort needs gain that energy as a result of technological advances, this will heat up the planet more. Cities are especially warm places because they cluster energy users. But it is not reasonable to assume that the use of fossil fuels will inevitably climb linearly: people's individual energy usage will level off as their energy needs are met to some extent. Individual people need their homes to be only so warm (or cool), and need to eat only so much food. (On the other hand, of course, employees might come under greater pressure to commute farther and to do more distant and more frequent business travel; social factors cannot be discounted.) But if pressure to increase our world population continues, this will become an ever more major driver of planetary heating.

We can humanely reduce population increase or even reduce the population over time. The reduced need for child labor as agricultural production becomes more efficient is one hopeful factor, as well as women's increasing freedom to control their reproductive role, though decreasing infant mortality has the opposite effect. Fossil fuels are the most accessible sources of energy for many people in the world right now, and play a major role in making these advances possible. They also are basic to the organic chemistry industry, which provides us with many important products ranging from pharmaceuticals to plastic goods. Because of this, if we institute drastic measures to cut down on the use of fossil fuels, this could endanger many lives, especially in developing countries, thereby generating unrest if not war.

There is currently much fear of population decrease expressed by authorities, who claim that this will lead to the extinction of our species. But should we assume this trend will continue linearly? Perhaps, as competition for natural resources relaxes, and affluence increases accordingly, it will become easier to obtain better pregnancy and childbirth support, maintain community safety, and children will be less expensive to bring up.

Electric Vehicles (EVs) for everyone: how realistic is this?

It is true that EVs produce less air pollution than their gas-powered counterparts when in use. But their batteries need to be recharged periodically, which relies on our electric grid. This electricity in turn is currently provided mainly by coal-fired and nuclear power plants, which will have to increase in number as the number of EVs in use increases. Coal is a dirtier energy source than either petroleum or natural gas, and many countries are cutting back on nuclear energy because of its perceived dangers. Besides, how practical will it be to power EVs with solar panels and windmills?

Gasoline/electric hybrid cars, on the other hand, do not need external electricity sources and make more efficient use of gasoline. Fortunately, they are very popular, although more people are buying bigger, less energy-efficient cars.

The inevitable conflict between the needs for energy to be renewable and clean

It's hard to come up with an energy source that's both renewable and clean. For example, even though biomass is renewable, it's definitely not clean. Wood is a fairly, though not ideally, renewable resource, but because it consists of large, complex, molecules, it produces poisonous chemicals when burned. The dangers of burning undecomposed organic matter became most obvious when the effects of cigarette smoking were analyzed and understood. This also has to taken into consideration when corn is refined to produce ethanol (to be added to gasoline), a very complex, perhaps energy-intensive process.

On the other hand, solar energy requires a number of relatively rare elements, which need to be mined. Solar cells need silicon, boron or gallium, and phosphorus. Solar batteries involve lead, lithium, or nickel-cadmium.

Windmills are typically very large metal constructions. Building them requires mining and energy-intensive manufacturing. Because of their size, diesel-powered vehicles are probably necessary to transport their parts to particular places, usually large fields or the ocean. Their energy is of course stored in batteries. They have been accused of killing migrating birds and a recent excess of beached whales near windfarms has been reported. However, it appears that France has recently (2025) come up with a compact design which appears to work very well.

The most renewable energy source is probably natural gas (usually methane, CH4); in fact, it naturally renews itself. It also burns most cleanly of all the hydrocarbons. However, harvesting it cleanly and efficiently is proving to be a challenge. Hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") is the currently preferred method of doing so, but the process, which involves pumping water and numerous chemicals deep into the earth, does environmental damage and wastes water. But since natural gas is always being produced naturally via the decomposition of organic matter, and is somewhat concentrated in sewers, it seems that some Yankee ingenuity could produce a means for harvesting and storing this substance above ground. But neither government nor business seems willing to pursue such a project, perhaps because eliminating natural gas from the air is an unrealistic goal.

And what about the other environmental issues?

I hope, however, that we do not focus on CO2 to the exclusion of other air and water pollutants, which are many and varied, some of which impose a more severe and urgent threat to public health. And it is important to recognize that reactions that involve clean combustion inevitably produce some dirty, i.e., incomplete, combustion because of imperfect ratios of reactants; when oxygen is used up before carbon is when high heat is applied, some reaction products will be carbon monoxide and all-carbon molecules of varying sizes, better known as "soot," which are are dangerous to health in much smaller amounts than CO2 is. Carbon is indeed an element to be feared because of its versatility: there seems to be no limit to the potential size of an all-carbon molecule.

Wildlife survival seems to have faded into the background. It is generally accepted that insect numbers have plunged in the last couple of decades. The issue of misuse of pesticides (not necessarily agricultural) emerges every now and then; we are reminded of a lawsuit proceding against glyphosate. However, the continuing development and production of highly poisonous herbicides, some of which take several years to degrade (much longer than does glyphosate), can be a problem for unsuspecting homeowners. Loblolly and slash pines are well-known for their resistance to herbicides; therefore the commercial pinestraw industry uses herbicides to kill understory plants that would make harvesting the pinestraw difficult. As a result, this pinestraw might retain some of them, depending on how long it takes for the herbicides used to degrade. The public is poorly educated about this subject, although publications listing the herbicides used and how persistent they are abound online.

REFERENCES

American Chemical Society (2014) How a solar cell works. Retrieved 31 Jan 2023 from https://www.acs.org/education/resources/highschool/chemmatters/past-issues/archive-2013-2014/how-a-solar-cell-works.html

Balog, J (2009) "Extreme Ice" Retrieved 8 Dec 2025 from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/extreme-ice.html

Bullock, FD (2023?) Herbaceous weed control in newly planted loblolly, slash, and long leaf pines. Retrieved 29 Jan 2023 from https://www.tnstate.edu/extension/documents/FACT%20SHEET%20ANR-8%20Weed%20Control%20in%20Pine.pdf

AUS-e-TUTE n.d.,Chemistry Tutorial : Combustion of Hydrocarbons, viewed 5 January 2014, http://www.ausetute.com.au/combusta.html

D. Humbird, R. Davis, L. Tao, C. Kinchin, D. Hsu, and A. Aden; P. Schoen, J. Lukas, B. Olthof, M. Worley, D. Sexton, and D. Dudgeon (2011) Process Design and Economics for Biochemical Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol; Dilute-Acid Pretreatment and Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Corn Stover. Retrieved 31 Jan 2023 from https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/47764.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2025) Basic ozone layer science. Retrieved 8 Dec 2025 from https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/basic-ozone-layer-science

Walker CF (2026) How the polar vortex and warm ocean intensified a major U.S. storm. Retrieved 29 Jan 2026 from https://theconversation.com/how-the-polar-vortex-and-warm-ocean-intensified-a-major-us-winter-storm-274243

World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Executive Summary. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2022, GAW Report No. 278, 56 pp.; WMO: Geneva, 2022. Retrieved 27 Jan 2023 from https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/Scientific-Assessment-of-Ozone-Depletion-2022-Executive-Summary.pdf