>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.
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...
Why do I have a feeling these numbers are being manipulated?