>area of the ozone hole ranked the seventh-smallest since recovery began in 1992 Yet later in the article: >In previous years, NOAA and NASA have reported the

>area of the ozone hole ranked the seventh-smallest since recovery began in 1992 Yet later in the article: >In previous years, NOAA and NASA have reported the ozone hole ranking using a time period dating back to 1979 (...) . Using that longer record (...) this year's hole ranked 20th-smallest in area across 45 years of observations. 20th-smallest or 25th-biggest. So looks like perfectly average size to me. If we look at year earlier: >the hole ranked as the 12th largest single-day ozone hole since 1979. from: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/152023/modest-ozone-hole-in-2023 https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/152023/modest-ozone... Why do I have a feeling these numbers are being manipulated?