Maybe it is because the major catalyst isn’t CFC’s after all? See this story:
Galactic Cosmic Rays May Be Responsible For The Antarctic Ozone Hole
In the conclusions of the paper here (PDF) there is this:
Thus, the above facts (1)–(5) force one to conclude that the CR[Cosmic Ray]-driven electron-induced reaction is the dominant mechanism for causing the polar O3 hole.
From NOAA’s Earth Systems Research Laboratory:
Antarctic Ozone Hole Persists, At Least for Awhile
Major success in reducing ozone-depleting substances may not pay off in the Antarctic for several more years
August in Antarctica means the Sun starts rising over the horizon again, following four months of darkness. For NOAA Corps officer Nick Morgan (GMD), stationed at the South Pole, the month also marks the moment when he begins measuring ozone in earnest.
For most of the year, Morgan and his colleagues launch giant plastic balloons into the air about weekly. Tethered to the balloons are instruments that take ozone readings up to about 18 miles high.
Then, in the Antarctic spring (August through October), sunlight-sparked chemical reactions begin eating away at ozone. Scientists start making measurements more often, and by October, Morgan or his colleagues are outside in minus 80°F temperatures about every other day. Morgan and other scientists around the world are watching those data carefully, looking for evidence that the Antarctic ozone hole is beginning to heal after decades of hurt.
There’s scant evidence yet, from the balloon-borne instrumnets or others on the ground and on satellites: At the end of September, total ozone was at its annual low of 122 Dobson units. Typical fall, winter, and summertime levels are 250-300 Dobson units. The worst-of-the-year ozone levels have averaged 108 during the last 24 years.
It will be difficult to establish a clear-cut recovery trend in Antarctic ozone levels because seasonal cycles and other variable natural factors—from the temperature of the atmosphere to the stability of atmospheric layers—can make ozone levels dip and soar from one day to another, says NOAA ESRL scientist Bryan Johnson. But the time is coming, probably within a few decades, when ozone depletion will no longer be observed each spring, Johnson said.
“And within the next decade or so,” Johnson says, “observations are anticipated to begin showing reduced severity of the ozone hole.”
As soon as the Sun crosses the horizon again during the Antarctic spring, sunlight-triggered chemical reactions involving air pollutants begin destroying ozone in a region of the atmosphere called the stratosphere. The stratospheric ozone layer protects Earth from some damaging ultraviolet radiation, so an ozone hole means more of that radiation can hit the surface and trigger elevated rates of skin cancer and crop damage.
In the Antarctic, the ingredients for ozone depletion line up perfectly around September: Sunlight, low temperatures in the stratosphere, polar stratospheric clouds that help catalyze the destructive chemistry, and the continued presence of ozone-depleting chemicals, many of them released decades ago. Most years, those conditions ease by early December, and the hole closes.
“The ozone hole has taken somewhat of a back seat in the public eye,” Morgan wrote in a recent blog post from the South Pole. “And maybe that is a sign of success.”
Levels of most ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere have declined significantly since the 1987 Montreal Protocol was signed, he noted.
That international treaty initiated the phasing out of chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), then used widely in refrigeration, as solvents, and in aerosol spray cans. The chemicals were breaking down in the stratosphere, and reactive parts—chlorine and bromine atoms—triggered ozone destruction, when conditions are ripe (sunlight, polar stratospheric clouds, cold temperatures).
International scientists contributing to the quadrennial 2010 Ozone Assessment— including many NOAA scientists—have calculated that although global stratospheric ozone may recover by midcentury, the ozone hole in the Antarctic will likely persist longer.
More: http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/spo_oz/ and http://icestories.exploratorium.edu/dispatches/south-pole-ozonesonde-lau… (video).
What is the relative magnitude of the natural processes and the effect of man made cfc’s at their peak output?
Well, back in the ’80’s the hole over the Antarctic was attributed to CFC’s released in the NH. I don’t see how CFC’s are, somehow, magigically attracted to Antarctic pole.
So if those “destructive ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere have declined significantly”, how come the ozone hole has reached its maximum in 2006 and _maybe_ we will see its recovery next decade? It somehow does not add up.
I am worried about this because we were told that the Montreal Protocol had to be signed in 1989 to stop “The end of the World” according to the scientists and all the Environmental Campaigners.
Well the ozone depletion and the ozone hole is just as big as ever, but as yet I see no evidence of “The end of the World”.
Can I have my old fridge back please?
Was there ever a baseline measurement that showed that there was a state without the ‘hole’?
My question about the ozone hole has always been, “how do we know that it wasn’t always there?” It seemed that as soon as the technology was there to measure it that they found the “hole”. Then all the hand-wringing ensued culminating in the Montreal Protocol.
It’s the same issue as all the AGW business, why is what we “think” the environment/climate should be more correct that what it is? Especially when one considers that both of these systems are W – I – D – E – L – Y variable.
The sun creates ozone, the sun destroys ozone. It just depends on how it feels on any given day.
Excepting the high from late 2008-2010 CRs are as high now as they ever were in the past 45 years.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startdate=1964/10/12&starttime=00:00&enddate=2010/11/12&endtime=19:48&resolution=1440&picture=on
If CRs are indeed a catalyst, as from the first link above, the hole won’t be healing anytime soon.
Follow up on the Lu 2009 paper:
http://prl.aps.org/pdf/PRL/v103/i22/e228501
Where’s the proof that this hole hasn’t always existed (at least in the last millenium)?
I want my cheap Freon back!
Another great post. I feel though that qualifying Q – B Lu’s work as proof that CFCs had little to do witht he ozone hole is a tad misleading because the paper itself says that cosmic rays influence the halogenated molecules and aid in the large losses of ozone in the polar regions, mostly the Antarctic, and that this means the road to recovery will not be monotonic as the ozone modellers thought. However, I would definitely agree that the issue was much more complex than many environmentalists led us to believe and that it offers little in the way of sound ideas regarding how to deal with any anthropogenic global warming we may have been/are experiencing.
This is the perfect example of assuming the cause is one thing based on 10 years of observations. Then when it doesn’t change later, it is shown the stated cause was wrong. Bromine, much like CO2, has a natural source in the oceans.
Once again the stated impact of mankind is vastly overblown.
Pffft – everyone knows that the ACTUAL cause of the “ozone hole” is people constantly launching balloons into the polar skies!
By the way, the clear fraudulence of the “ozone hole” scare was my personal awakening to how “scientists” lie, how “greens” twist what scientists see into lies, and how many people are easily fooled by bogus “science”.
The fact is, when the instruments to visualize the ozone layer were first deployed they found a hole, and the ONLY mechanism for this hole was assumed to be human industry.
On the one hand, this was a runup to the sheer gall of the “AGW” hoax. On the other, those who saw through the Ozone hoax are more likely to see through the “AGW” hoax.
“so an ozone hole means more of that radiation can hit the surface and trigger elevated rates of skin cancer and crop damage”
I don’t think there are a lot of people or crops in the antarctic, so how do they demonstrate that the hole in the ozone layer over the antarctic reduces the amount of ozone over people and crops?
Severian says:
November 12, 2010 at 8:26 am (Edit)
I want my cheap Freon back!
And my highly effective life saving halon fire extinguishers!
Am I missing something? The post says that the O3 depleting reaction requires sunlight, stratospheric clouds (moisture), and cold temperatures.
Does the sun shine only at the poles?
Are there stratospheric clouds only near the poles?
Isn’t the temperature 18 miles up by the equator around -50 degrees?
So why is there an ozone hole only at the pole? Aren’t the necessary conditions for ozone depletion also present in the temperate & tropical zones?
Larry says:
November 12, 2010 at 8:59 am
……..I don’t think there are a lot of people or crops in the antarctic, so how do they demonstrate that the hole in the ozone layer over the antarctic reduces the amount of ozone over people and crops?
Regret the edges of the “hole” are not well defined, and in New Zealand (and probably South Australia and southern South America) the effects are very real
The sun here gets very fierce, and big campaigns by Government and NGO’s to “slip, slop, slap” abound
Compared to the Northern Hemisphere we do have a hugely increased exposure to UV – I have a “sensitive skin” – trust me I know what both feel like
Andy
Think about the Whales
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/8122026/Whales-sunburned-by-thinning-ozone.html
I read somewhere that the ozone hole was a natural occurrence. Roughly, ozone is only created in the tropics, and migrates to the poles, In winter, the weather pattern (southern polar vortex?) is such, that the ozone cannot migrate to the south pole, though it can to the north pole. So in winter we have an ozone over the south pole as a result of Mother Nature. This then disappears in the spring when the vortex disappears.
Re Larry
Not speaking that the hole is formed predominantly in the southern winter time, when the Antarctic is pitch black all day. Isn’t it strange, Watson?
Ahh, a trip down bogus science memory lane. It is worthwhile and interesting to reflect upon the climate alarms of the past. In each and every alarm, the underlying cause was man’s industrialization and economic activity. Every one!
Djozar says: November 12, 2010 at 8:25 am
“Where’s the proof that this hole hasn’t always existed (at least in the last millenium)?”
This was the exact question I asked the two leading world authorities two years ago. My question was directed to the Max Planck institute and Cambridge University.
Instruments were developed to ‘see’ the hole in the 1950’s. Both institutions admit that it is quite possible the hole already existed but it couldn’t be measured. Just like Satellite readings therefore the ‘official’ view is that this problem has only ocurred in the last 40 years and it must be due to man.
Personally I think that like many natural events its cyclical.
Tonyb
As a chemist, I never for one minute believed that CFCs were in any way related to, much less causative, of the ozone hole. Nor that DDT and the effective chlorinated pesticides were toxic. I did and do know, however, that the malathion and permethrin classes of pesticides in current use were sensitizers and nerve gases, and that environmentalist policies have cost millions of lives over the years..
Poorly educated pseudo-scientists in Greenpeace, Sierra Club, WWF, etc. etc., have been in control of environmentalism for a long, long while. How do we defeat them and run them out of town?
I guess, “keep doin’ what you’re doin’, Anthony!”