Okay, looked at your reference: https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/SH.html https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/SH.html There can see: (1)

Okay, looked at your reference: https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/SH.html https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/SH.html There can see: (1) Yes, there is ozone in the atmosphere of the southern hemisphere, and the concentration of the ozone varies with month of the year and altitude. (2) The ozone is created by ultraviolet (UV) from the sun. (3) Ozone converts back to oxygen via 2O3 --> 3O2 (4) When it is late summer, August, in the northern hemisphere, it is late winter in the southern hemisphere with some months of much less sunlight, so little that many days go 24 hours with no sunlight. Thus, by August ozone has been converting back to oxygen as usual; ozone creation has been way down; and, no surprise, there is an "ozone hole" over Antarctica. (4) CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) do cause destruction of some ozone. I see: > Increased levels of human-produced gases such as CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) have led to increased rates of ozone destruction, upsetting the natural balance of ozone and leading to reduced stratospheric ozone levels. These reduced ozone levels have increased the amount of harmful ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. All of this is just as I claimed. And the reference does not answer the crucial, central question I asked, "how much", how many kilograms of CFCs are destroying how many kilograms of ozone per day and, thus, letting how many Watts of UV radiation reach Antarctica, and what are the effects in percent of ozone and UV radiation? So, that reference does not give credible scientific data that CFCs destroying ozone are a threat. And there are hints in the text there that my concern is appropriate, that is, ozone concentration varies: > Uh, and maybe what is the stochastic process of ozone concentration considering solar flairs, sun spots, the standard 11 year cycle of sun spots with or without CFCs? Thus, 100% of my claims are supported by the reference, and, net, we are left with no credible scientific evidence that CFCs are a threat. And the reference did not claim, as you did, that the Nobel prize is good evidence that the CFCs are a threat.