From MSNBC: WELLINGTON, New Zealand — International efforts to phase out the use of chlorofluorocarbons and other ozone-depleting substances may be paying off, according to research revealed Friday by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in New Zealand.
The Antarctica ozone hole is the smallest it has been in the past five years, NIWA said.
While a one-year reduction in the ozone hole can’t indicate a recovery stage, NIWA’s atmospheric experts say the new information adds to a pattern of less severe ozone holes in recent years.
Satellite data combined with ground-base measurements, including the Antarctica New Zealand Arrival Heights observatory near Scott Base, show the hole reached a maximum area of about 22 million square kilometers (about 8.5 million square miles) and a 27 million ton deficit of ozone this year, compared with 24 million square kilometers (about 9.3 million square miles) and a 35 million ton deficit last year.
The largest hole, according to NIWA, was 29 million square kilometers (about 11.2 million square miles) and a 43 million ton deficit, recorded in 2000 and then repeated in 2006.
“We see a lot of year-to-year variation in ozone holes, caused by differences in atmospheric temperature and circulation,” said NIWA atmospheric scientist Stephen Wood in a prepared statement. “So we can’t definitively say the ozone hole is improving from one new year of observations.”
“However, we have now had a few years in succession with less severe holes,” Wood said. “That is an indication we may be beginning to see a recovery.”
…
More at MSNBC
Antarctic ozone hole smallest in five years
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A recovery?
How many years are they basing this dubious claim on?
Not only that the Sun has been less active during the same time.
There were Ozone “holes” spotted back in the late 1950’s too.Maybe it is an irregular occurrence over time?
More likely the ozone hole expands when the sun is active and contracts when the sun is quiet.
An active sun thereby destroying ozone faster in the higher levels of the atmosphere than does a quiet sun. Thus tipping the balance between net creation and net destruction.
The recent data highlighted by Joanna Haigh shows increased ozone above 45km between 2004 and 2007 despite the quiet sun.
Additionally the recovering ozone above 45km will be altering the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere to cause more equatorward jet streams with more clouds, a higher global albedo and less energy entering the oceans so that ocean heat content will decline.
My guess is the ozone hole has been getting larger and smaller for as long as this planet has been here. (And of late, some pockets have been nicely filled too, thank you.)
Until we understand the physics (and the history) better, there’s no way anyone can say that limiting man-made chlorofluorocarbons has any effect on the ozone “hole”. Was there a “hole” there before we could observe such things? Nobody knows.
Anyone know if any studies have been done on the effects of incoming radiation on Ozone stability in the upper atmosphere?
The hole is here to stay; today, tomorrow and always.
The hole has been reduced in size from 29 million square kilometres to 22 million square kilometres in just 4 years. Just about 25% which is a huge ‘improvement’ and not just a freak event but part of a trend over a number of years.
Far too big a change to be anything to do with human sourced ozone depleting emissions. Although CFC emissions have decreased other ozone depleting chemicals have taken their place and indeed increased as the third world has accelerated its development.
“Indication we may” is a quantum-leap in caution – a double-dither.
I can categorically state with one hundred per-cent certainty that I might laugh.
Conjecture. When did the “hole” appear? Do we know it wasn’t there before we “found” it? How did it get there? How long was it there?
beng says:
December 7, 2010 at 6:45 am
===========================================
Could not agree more.
Seems to be another fake “cause and effect” just like CO2.
The ozone hole started a recovery, before the ban on CFC’s had time to take effect.
I seriously doubt if the “whole world” has reduced CFC’s enough to make any difference.
The ozone hole and some corrupt science and media were used to hoax the public so DuPont Corp could replace old refrigerant with new refrigerant and to continue getting royalties that were about to expire on the old stuff.
Of course, the effect of drastically reducing CFC’s on the ozone hole is one of the big success stories of international cooperation on the environment. However, since CFCs have long half lives in the statosphere (>50years) their decline will be slow, as will be the recovery of stratospheric ozone. None the less, many good scientific studies, largely by physical chemists, show that we can expect CFCs to decline and the ozone hole to decrease very gradually over the next 150 years and more. This is a topic with essentially no controversy among main stream scientists.
Hmmm . . sorry but all this article means is that the ozone hole got smaller this year. The link to CFC’s is at best unproven.
There will always be an ozone hole in both polar regions in winter because sunlight is required for the production of ozone.
But Ozone is a greenhouse gas, so…….
I see one year may indicate a trend but now statistical warming for 15 years is not long enough to indicate anything.
BillD “This is a topic with essentially no controversy among main stream scientists.”
Oh here we go again science by consensus.
Ozone “holes” were spotted in the late 1950’s too.
John Dobson actually recorded large drops of O3 that was periodic every year.This was known since the 1950’s.
There are a number of Dobson stations around the world that measure O3,many since the 1960’s.They show no long term decline,but periodic up and down over time.
“NIWA’s atmospheric experts say the new information adds to a pattern of less severe ozone holes in recent years.”
Did we have one of the largest holes ever recorded in a recent year? 2008? I’m pretty sure WUWT covered it…
And yet…..”From September 21 to 30 [2006], the average area of the ozone hole was the largest ever observed, at 10.6 million square miles,” said Paul Newman, atmospheric scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. If the stratospheric weather conditions had been normal, the ozone hole would be expected to reach a size of about 8.9 to 9.3 million square miles, about the surface area of North America.”
Lots of information at this site.
http://www.theozonehole.com/ozoneholehistory.htm
I have always been skeptical about this Ozone hole thing. Not about the lack of zone over the Antarctic but about the hypotheses relating to how and why it is there, what causes it and the like. I strongly suspect the connections go way deeper and are only partly related if at all to CFC’s.
BillD:
Usually when we’re being sarcastic on WUWT, we throw some kind of mention in… like
/sarc
My favorite part was:
“This is a topic with essentially no controversy among main stream scientists.”
Hilarious! Absolutely no “main stream scientists” disagree in any way shape or form with the “CFC breaks Ozone” hypothesis… ROFLMAO!
The rest of the Ozone hole fell over Pakistan, as the recent Pakistan flood:
Hydrogen Nucleii (Cosmic rays and/or proton flares)+ O3 = H2O…etc (Water)
Gee, and solar output’s at a low as well. Hey! – Maybe there’s a connection?
Tosh. I suggest that the “hole” is a perfectly natural occurance that varies with solar activity.
Why this is important for thos ewho believe is that hte Montreal Protocol is given as a successful example for the Kyoto Protocol to follow.
Sorry BillD.
Theory that CFC’s depleted ozone may be right, but reference to mainstream scientists has mixed value these days.