Guess we may delay our leaf raking for a while since we are warned that the largest Ozone hole will happen in one or two weeks and we wouldn’t want to be exposed to too many of those deadly UV rays. But whoa, what happened to all that stuff we did? You remember the ozone hole panic, don’t you? And the urgency about reducing CFC’s in the environment, in aerosol sprays, replacing freon in our appliances and suchlike, so the ozone hole wouldn’t get larger and in hopes it might heal up? Did it help? Or was it all for nought? Could the consensus science have been so wrong? It seems it might have been.
A University of Waterloo scientist says that cosmic rays are a key cause for expanding the hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole — and predicts the largest ozone hole will occur in one or two weeks. Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy who studies ozone depletion, said that it was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth’s ozone layer is depleted by chlorine atoms produced by sunlight-induced destruction of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere. But more and more evidence now points to a new theory that the cosmic rays (energy particles that originate in space) play a major role.
What do you know! Cosmic rays. Wrong culprit. Imagine.
Lu said that data from several sources, including NASA satellites, show a strong correlation between cosmic ray intensity and ozone depletion. Lab measurements demonstrate a mechanism by which cosmic rays cause drastic reactions of ozone-depleting chlorine inside polar clouds.
Satellite data in the period of 1980-2007, covering two full 11-year solar cycles, demonstrate the significant correlation between cosmic rays and ozone depletion. …[link to source]
Well, all that effort and expense and hype and worry for nothing. Of course, consensus science has come a long way since then. Or has it?
Oh, we think it is safe to rake anyway- the ozone hole at issue is over the south pole.
Meanwhile Arctic sea ice is returning full force.
Of course it could change.
But we predict an early snowfall. Better get after those leaves.
LATER: Reading for bonus points
“Maybe in 10 years time, it’ll all start to freeze over, we just don’t know.”
Wolfville watch 
If you want to write about science, it would behoove you to inform yourself somewhjat better and not give the impression that you are poo pooing scientific research, because such an attitude will inevitably come to haunt you. If you look up the website of dr. Lu, you’ll notice that he explains the issue well and also that he notes that ‘the debate is still on’. Hence, his hypothesis has not been elevated to theory (standard scientific method) and not proven. In addition, cosmic rays are very complex physical phenomena (and not ‘rays’, which is a misnomer). Wikipedia has a very good write-up on cosmic ‘rays’, worthwhile studying. Cosmic ‘rays’ also vary over time, more or less with the ‘seasonality’ of the solar system and the universe, unrelated to our own seasons, of course. Physics and astronomy are very complex sciences, the explanation of which is best left to those who understand them and not to amateurs with contemptuous attitudes. And last but not least, if dr Lu’s hypothesis proves to be correct, it does not take away in the least the importance of the Montreal protocol (1989) which ended CFC emissions, because why would anyone deliberately want to pollute?
Wikipedia huh? Gee thanks. We’ll keep that in mind.
Poo pooing scientific research? Where, where? Au contraire, mon ami.
We are glad you agree that physics and astronomy are very complex subjects. (So is chemistry which is pertinent to the CFC issue ). One would think these subjects were very simple indeed given the certainty of the opinions disseminated on AGW.
Yes, we believe the debate is still on- That is exactly what we were saying if you read us carefully. There is no consensus yet.
Should you contact Dr. Lu and suggest he not use the term “cosmic RAYS” as he does? Refer him to wikipedia.
your attitude is contemptuous, even when you are clearly clueless about these matters. Fortunately, people see straight through it, no wonder you only got 69 votes.
Now who is clueless. We reiterate- as we have elsewhere in these posts-[added – see this comment of ours] we are not Mr. Townsend ( we take it that is who you think we are). We have not stood for Council or mayor EVER. You are mistaken.