Say what? There isn’t much that surprises me anymore in the rarefied air that is climate science today. This headline made me do a double take, and the sentence that followed, blaming “unusually low temperatures”, even more so. Here’s a NASA satellite derived image in a science story from 2001 on the Arctic ozone:
And the mechanism, it seems “weather” has a major role:
NASA researchers using 22 years of satellite-derived data have confirmed a theory that the strength of “long waves,” bands of atmospheric energy that circle the Earth, regulate the temperatures in the upper atmosphere of the Arctic, and play a role in controlling ozone losses in the stratosphere. These findings will also help scientists predict stratospheric ozone loss in the future.
There’s no hint of this in the press release. Instead they say:
For several years now scientists have pointed to a connection between ozone loss and climate change…
Arctic on the verge of record ozone loss – Arctic-wide measurements verify rapid depletion in recent days
Potsdam/Bremerhaven, March 14th, 2011.
Unusually low temperatures in the Arctic ozone layer have recently initiated massive ozone depletion. The Arctic appears to be heading for a record loss of this trace gas that protects the Earth’s surface against ultraviolet radiation from the sun. This result has been found by measurements carried out by an international network of over 30 ozone sounding stations spread all over the Arctic and Subarctic and coordinated by the Potsdam Research Unit of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association (AWI) in Germany.
“Our measurements show that at the relevant altitudes about half of the ozone that was present above the Arctic has been destroyed over the past weeks,” says AWI researcher Markus Rex, describing the current situation. “Since the conditions leading to this unusually rapid ozone depletion continue to prevail, we expect further depletion to occur.”
The changes observed at present may also have an impact outside the thinly populated Arctic. Air masses exposed to ozone loss above the Arctic tend to drift southwards later. Hence, due to reduced UV protection by the severely thinned ozone layer, episodes of high UV intensity may also occur in middle latitudes. “Special attention should thus be devoted to sufficient UV protection in spring this year,” recommends Rex.
Ozone is lost when breakdown products of anthropogenic chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are turned into aggressive, ozone destroying substances during exposure to extremely cold conditions. For several years now scientists have pointed to a connection between ozone loss and climate change, and particularly to the fact that in the Arctic stratosphere at about 20km altitude, where the ozone layer is, the coldest winters seem to have been getting colder and leading to larger ozone losses. “The current winter is a continuation of this development, which may indeed be connected to global warming,” atmosphere researcher Rex explains the connection that appears paradoxical only at first glance. “To put it in a simplified manner, increasing greenhouse gas concentrations retain the Earth’s thermal radiation at lower layers of the atmosphere, thus heating up these layers. Less of the heat radiation reaches the stratosphere, intensifying the cooling effect there.” This cooling takes place in the ozone layer and can contribute to larger ozone depletion. “However, the complicated details of the interactions between the ozone layer and climate change haven’t been completely understood yet and are the subject of current research projects,” states Rex. The European Union finances this work in the RECONCILE project, a research programme supported with 3.5 million euros in which 16 research institutions from eight European countries are working towards improved understanding of the Arctic ozone layer.
In the long term the ozone layer will recover thanks to extensive environmental policy measures enacted for its protection. This winter’s likely record-breaking ozone loss does not alter this expectation. “By virtue of the long-term effect of the Montreal Protocol, significant ozone destruction will no longer occur during the second half of this century,” explains Rex. The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty adopted under the UN umbrella in 1987 to protect the ozone layer and for all practical purposes bans the production of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) worldwide today. CFCs released during prior decades however, will not vanish from the atmosphere until many decades from now. Until that time the fate of the Arctic ozone layer essentially depends on the temperature in the stratosphere at an altitude of around 20 km and is thus linked to the development of earth’s climate.
This is a joint statement of the following institutions. The persons mentioned in each case are also at your disposal as contacts.
Belgium
Hugo De Backer, Royal Meteorological Institute of Belgium, +32 2 3730594, Hugo.DeBacker@meteo.be
Canada
Tom McElroy, Environment Canada, +1 416 739 4630, Tom.McElroy(at)ec.gc.ca
David W. Tarasick, Air Quality Res. Div., Environ. Canada, +1 416 739-4623, david.tarasick(at)ec.gc.ca
Kaley A. Walker, Univ. Toronto, Dep. of Physics, +1 416 978 8218, kwalker(at)atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca
Czech Republic
Karel Vanicek, Solar and Ozone Observatory, Czech Hydromet. Inst., +420 495260352, vanicek(at)chmi.cz
Denmark
Niels Larsen, Danish Climate Center, Danish Meteorological Institute, +45-3915-7414, nl(at)dmi.dk
Finland
Rigel Kivi, Arctic Research Center, Finnish Meteorological Institute, +358 405424543, rigel.kivi(at)fmi.fi
Esko Kyrö, Arctic Research Center, Finnish Meteorological Institute, +358 405527438, esko.kyro(at)fmi.fi
France
Sophie Godin-Beekmann, Gerard Ancellet, LATMOS CNRS-UPMC, +33 1442747 67 / 62, sophie.godin-beekmann@latmos.ipsl.fr, gerard.ancellet(at)latmos.ipsl.fr
Germany
Hans Claude, Wolfgang Steinbrecht, Deutscher Wetterdienst Hohenpeißenberg, +49 8805 954 170 / 172, hans.claude(at)dwd.de, wolfgang.steinbrecht(at)dwd.de
Franz-Josef Lübken, Leibniz-Institut für Atmosphärenphysik, +49 38293 68 100, luebken(at)iap-kborn.de
Greece
Dimitris Balis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, +30 2310 998192, balis@auth.gr
Costas Varotsos, University of Athens, +30 210 7276838, covar(at)phys.uoa.gr
Christos Zerefos, Academy of Athens, +30 210 8832048, zerefos(at)academyofathens.gr
Great Britain
Neil Harris, European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit, University of Cambridge, +44 1223 311797, Neil.Harris(at)ozone-sec.ch.cam.ac.uk
Norway
Cathrine Lund Myhre, NILU – Norwegian Institute for Air Research, +47-63898042, clm(at)nilu.no
Russia
Valery Dorokhov, Central Aerological Observatory , +7 499 206 9370, vdor(at)starlink.ru
Vladimir Yushkov, Central Aerological Observatory +7 495 408-6150, vladimir(at)caomsk.mipt.ru
Natalya Tsvetkova, Central Aerological Observatory +7 495 408-6150, nat(at)caomsk.mipt.ru
Spain
Concepción Parrondo, Manuel Gil , INTA, +34 91 5201564, parrondosc@inta.es, gilm(at)inta.es
Switzerland
René Stübi, Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology, MeteoSwiss, +41 26 662 62 29, rene.stubi(at)meteoswiss.ch
Geir O. Braathen, World Meteorological Organization, +41 22 730 82 35, GBraathen(at)wmo.int
USA
Ross J. Salawitch, Univ. of Maryland, MD, +1 626 487 5643, rjs(at)atmos.umd.edu
Francis J. Schmidlin, NASA/GSFC/Wallops Flight Facility, +1 757 824 1618, francis.j.schmidlin(at)nasa.gov
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I was under the impression that CFC’s had been absolved of ozone destroying blame and the ozone volume in the stratosphere was produced by solar radiation. Solar radiation has been at a low level for some time now so ozone has reduced.
Or has this all changed again.
OMG, this is just so unbelievably pathetic. So lets summarise.
1.Rapid depletion in recent days? How has this, can this have anything to do with CFC`s that have been in the atmosphere for tens of years and are now fading away?
2. Sorry missed that, it seems that chemical reactions happen faster in cold conditions, my bad.
3. Its getting colder because of warming, silly me, how did I miss that.
This is magnitudes worse than the maize post earlier.
I can hear this post screaming for a Willis audit.
“Environmentally policy-ized for your protection” – the new EPA slogan.
It seems much more likely that if the cause is linked to cold air, that the ozone (O3) is not being destroyed. Rather it is sinking over the poles with the cold air and being carried on the winds at lower altitudes towards the equatorial regions.
The “bad science” in the report is this statement “Our measurements show that at the relevant altitudes about half of the ozone that was present above the Arctic has been destroyed over the past weeks,” says AWI researcher Markus Rex.
They are assuming the O3 is being destroyed, without considering that it has simply moved, carried on the wind as exceptionally cold winds descend over the poles.
How this is due to global warming is very hard to understand becuase one of the main predictions of global warming is a warming of the air over the poles, while what they are reporting is a cooling of the air over the south pole.
A more likely cause of the cooling is the current low level of solar activity which climate science ignores and fails to allow for in its calculations. A contributing factor is the shift in the frequencies of energy the sun is putting out towards IR, leading to a very large drop in UV, leading to a large drop in O3 production.
Don’t panic folks, I found the prtoblem:-
The European Union finances this work in the RECONCILE project, a research programme supported with 3.5 million euros in which 16 research institutions from eight European countries are working towards improved understanding of the Arctic ozone layer.
BTW, aren’t some of these evil CFCs naturally produced too & as pointed out they have largely been absolved of guilt I thought? AND still nobody has as yet answered the BIG QUESTION about the ozone hole (that isn’t a hole, it’s a thinning & there are several), “How do you know it hasn’t always been there?”. Answers on a postcode to:-
Smart Arse Eco-Lawyers & CO,
Squillions Towers,
Screwthetaxpayer Avenue,
Richville.
The process is not completely understood according to Markus Rex and consequently I am having trouble understanding his explanation of the process. Send more money.
John Marshall says:
March 15, 2011 at 7:34 am
I was under the impression that CFC’s had been absolved of ozone destroying blame and the ozone volume in the stratosphere was produced by solar radiation. Solar radiation has been at a low level for some time now so ozone has reduced.
Or has this all changed again.
================================================
No John, nothing has changed, it all depends on the narrative of the day. You see, sometimes we fixed a problem and other times we discover new things about the ozone that would indicate that there never was a problem, but today, its a problem that we proactively fixed even though its not really fixed but still a problem.
I hope that clears things up for you.
OK, to synopsize:
1. Ozone at arctic “heading for” record low levels; half of all arctic ozone “gone” in a week
2. Stratospheric temps lower than “avg”; looks to continue
3. Ozone “IS” depleted due to anthropogenic CFCs (?)
4. Coldest winters “seem” to be colder(?); and “may” be connected to global warming
5. Interactions between ozone layer and “climate change” not “completely understood”
6. Much money thrown at this incomplete understanding, across a number of nations
7. Long-term everything will be OK thanks to UN’s Montreal Protocol (whew)
8. Old CFCs still floating around killing Ozone willy-nilly, will continue for “years”; in mean time, Ozone’s fate tied to stratospheric temps, thus tied to climate change.
9. Invest in Coppertone; we’ll need LOTS of it
10. I’m sure it’s worse than we thought.
Bottom line: It’s modern man’s fault, those horrible bastards! Well…. it might be….. we’re just not “completely understanding” how it all works…. but the UN rode to our rescue… we’re saved!!! Well… not for an undetermined number of years while those nasty anthropogenic CFCs continue to gobble up poor little Ozone, or until it’s convenient for the UN to forget it.
I hope this helps cut through all the fluff.
By the way, has there been a study to determine the actual PPM(or whatever metric) of CFCs in the “ozone layer” and whether they’re increasing, declining, or staying the same. Seems to me that as these CFCs interact with ozone, they’d be decomposed in that process. Not being a chemist or atmospheric scientist I haven’t a clue, I’m really asking if someone knows this chemical process that the UN got all up in arms about.
Wasn’t there recent solar activity and northern lights? Perhaps this is related to the “sudden depletion.”
@Bushy – you beat me to the Post button. 😉
You see, if it keeps on getting warmer we are going to freeze to death, just like the Ozone./sarc
All the stratospheric temperature charts I have seen show that the drop in stratospheric temperatures stopped after the last major volcanic eruption in the early mid 1990s. Since 1994, stratopheric temperatures have been mostly stable with a slight increase.
(I would appreciate a link to stratospheric temperature graph / chart that is updated on monthly basis.)
The climate science dogma is so wrapped up in human’s being responsible for every change they remain totally incapable of incorporating any natural changes into their view of climate. The sun is in the middle of a change unlike anything seen for 100+ years and climate scientists are so wrapped up in human emissions as the cause for everything they have totally missed the plot. Climate science has gone right off the rails.
Yet another reason not to live north of the Arctic circle! What with the frigid cold, the polar bears, the junk ice, open waters, and now ozone hole, it’s just not the same vacation wonderland that it used to be.
The other possibility is that these guys actually realize that the CFC and AGW hypothesis does not explain what they are saying, but that unless they tow the established science line, they will lose their funding to a group that will toe the line.
After all, there are many important and influential scientists that made their reputations based on CFC and AGW, and if some group was to proven them wrong these scientists would lose their positions of prestige, so they are not about to approve any funding for anyone that might call CFC or AGW into question.
In other words, they know it is rubbish, but it pays well so they are prepared to live with it.
Why just now this news of these new things done by cold.
A cold strawman?
Back to the future?
This mis-information, just why, why now, and keep an eye on this. We know it is a group project this CO2 or something else tax deal. They may be about changeing the evil doer that needs big taxing.
Q.-B. Lu predicted this would happen in Correlation between Cosmic Rays and Ozone Depletion
PRL 102, 118501 (2009) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, 20 MARCH 2009 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.118501
The unusually low solar cycle transition between Cycles 23 – 24 may have further contributed to this. Worth comparing these two theories.
So the Arctic conditions are in no way tied to the sun, and the fact that the greatest flux of solar particles impacts the earth at the poles……..
Sure, what ever you say………
These people have gone bonkers…. What has happened to society? It weird, like they dont know how to think and cant speak the facts…
Correction, that’s ‘aCFC’ for anthropogenic chlorofluorocarbons.
MikeEE
“However, the complicated details of the interactions between the ozone layer and climate change haven’t been completely understood yet and are the subject of current research projects,”
But don’t worry because ALL the climate computer models to date have fully factored in these “complicated details” and that is how they have been able to predict, with amazing accuracry, the temperature in 100 year’s time.
/sarc off, if needed.
Hopefully the winters won’t get any colder!
It is my experience that a “complex understanding” means you are missing something. A complex explanation is not a solution but an indication you should keep your mouth shut and look for a better explanation before you embarrass yourself. Oh, thats right. After they get their funding they don’t care what other people think of them.
LOL, story telling…….. the new messaging, same as the old messaging. And people wonder why climate science has a credibility issue.
Whether it is energy or the enviorment it is always about depletion and not supply.
Do you think with the solar wind declining by 30% since 1996 the supply of ozone could be affected? Was the decline in charged particles being funneled to the poles even mentioned in this arcticle? What about a decline in UV over the same period?
So cooling is caused by warming:
Umm — I thought that a stronger GHG effect would warm the entire atmosphere, including the stratosphere, which is catching and re-radiating some of the upwelling IR radiation.