Arctic Ozone "Hole" in March

Even when I believed that we were in some way responsible for any loss of Ozone, I could never figure out how:

Ozone is a protective atmospheric layer found at around 25 km altitude that acts as a sunlight filter shielding life on Earth from harmful ultraviolet rays, which can harm marine life and increase the risk of skin cancer and cataracts.

could happen when none of the sunlight getting to my skin would ever have been anywhere near the pole. Can anyone tell me?
Perhaps it bounces off CO2 molecules back to reach me or something, instead of warming some poley bear (or penguin where I am now) just a little so he can avoid freezing to death from all the Global Warming.

These “scientists” are desperately trying to keep the myth going:-
“Scientists are investigating why the 2011 and 1997 Arctic winters were so cold and whether these random events are statistically linked to global climate change.”
But it is getting more and more like trying to get farts out of a dead donkey.

I got this on BBC satellite TV, complete with the polar bears, showing the melting ice flows, they said that it was due to ” human
industrial activity” and that the British Government was asking medical Doctors (whom owing to there position of trust ) to inform the public of the grave situation.

no double take then this time?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/15/my-morning-double-take-arctic-on-the-verge-of-record-ozone-loss/
REPLY:A double take is for surprises, having written about it once, the surprise is no longer there, but you knew that and just wanted to get some anonymous snark in. Mission accomplished, but satisfaction denied – Anthony

It is likely to be a consequence of the more active sun as it comes up out of the recent deep minimum.
As I have said elsewhere the precise mixture of particles and wavelengths from the sun (dependent on levels of activity) does seem to alter the net balance of chemical reactions in the atmosphere so as to change the vertical temperature profile and alter the shape and intensity of the polar vortices.
I would expect the polar vortex to be less intense and larger at the surface at solar minimum as we did iondeed observe with it becoming more intense and smaller at the surface when solar activity picks up again as we now observe.
There are lots of other confounding factors of course, not least the state of the ocean cycles and the warm/cold SST distributions but all they serve to do is apply a bottom up forcing to modulate the top down solar effect so as to partially disguise the solar signal over periods of less than several decades.
Note that this is a matter of atmospheric chemistry and not radiative physics so I do not see Leif Svalgaard’s oft stated objections as relevant.
Many suggest a significant contribution from length of day variations and cosmic ray quantities but I see them as orders of magnitude less significant than the chemical changes.
Altering the vertical temperature profile so as to shift the air circulation patterns latitudinally and thereby lengthen the air mass boundaries for more mixing and greater cloudiness would be by far the most effective mechanism for altering global albedo and cloudiness quickly.
I see length of day and cosmic ray quantities as maybe minor players but mostly just coincidental concomitants to the variations in the mix of solar output.

Remember Joe D’Aleo’s article a few months ago?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/08/new-rate-of-stratospheric-photolysis-questions-ozone-hole/
It also referenced: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/08/new-rate-of-stratospheric-photolysis-questions-ozone-hole/
All this study does is mash two errors together to try and make each more plausible.

Anthony I am bitterly disappointed in you.
There are no “holes” in the ozone layer, as there IS NO ozone layer except as an imaginary mathematical construct. A “Dobson Unit” measures the amount of ozone in a column of air from ground level to the outer reach of the atmosphere. It is then assumed that all this ozone exists as a “layer” at sea level at zero deg C.
Most atmospheric ozone occurs as a result of sunlight striking O2 molecules. Obviously this happens most where the two meet – at the outer reaches of the atmosphere, but it can also occur at any altitude. Equally obviously, it DOESN’T happen if either of the two basic ingredients are missing – that is, sunlight or oxygen.
In case nobody noticed you folk have just finished winter up there in the NH. Winter in the Arctic Circle means NO sunlight. No sunlight means NO ozone. In fact, if it weren’t for the winds from places outside the Arctic Circle (you know – where the sun shines), there would be NO ozone at the Polar Regions at the end of their respective winters.
The fact that there is some is what Professor Gordon Dobson used to prove the existence of the upper atmospheric winds for which he was awarded the International Geophysical Man of the Year award in 1957. It is also why he invented the Dobson Spectrophotometer which measures ozone in Dobson Units which we still use today.
About the only factual comment in your article was the first sentence:
“This record low was caused by unusually strong winds, known as the polar vortex, which isolated the atmospheric mass over the North Pole and prevented it from mixing with air in the mid-latitudes”.
No mixing of air from where the sun shines = no ozone in the Arctic region where the sun hasn’t been shining. End of story. QED. No need for all the thoroughly discredited crap about cold air masses releasing chlorine and bromine from CFC’s.
Like the CAGW scam the “CFC’s are destroying the ozone layer” scam was a scam designed to make certain parties a great deal of money. It succeeded.
It is a shame to see it repeated here as “fact”, not just once, but now twice.
REPLY: be disappointed all you like, but please do read the first paragraph:

From the European Space Agency, a story of significant cold and wind patterns that have created an ozone hole in the Arctic where there normally isn’t one. The last time this happened was in 1997. It isn’t really a “hole” as you can see in the graphic below there are reduced levels of ozone, but nothing anywhere near zero.

Note also in the title “hole” in quote marks.
I’m not going to change words just because somebody doesn’t like the wording, even if I agree that “hole” isn’t the right way to describe it. It has become common terminology, and I’ve made the appropriate caveat front and center.
Please note the remainder of the article is from the ESA, follow the link. – Anthony

The UK commuters’ morning read, Metro, said about this, ” … cold stratospheric conditions can lead to substantial [ozone] depletion.” And the very next sentence said “Global warming experts focus on the region …”
So it is worse when it is cold but we need to throw in “global warming”, why not simply say “Researchers focus on the region ….”?

I recently read somewhere a quote from a respected Ozone Hole researcher that about 80% of all the papers published on the Ozone Holes during the Great Ozone Hole Catastrophe in the Making scam were either fraudulent or had major errors that rendered them worthless.
I also believe that blaming Chlorofluorocarbons for the Ozone depletion was a direct outcome of modeling and that the actual chemical reactions leading to the ozone depletion were never actually replicated in a laboratory until the French did so a few years ago.
And then it seems that the claimed chemical reactions derived from the models involving CFC’s and ozone depletion were not possible at the atmospheric temperatures, air densities and conditions reigning at the height of the polar ozone holes.
To quote from the above article;
“As March sunlight hit this cold air mass it released chlorine and bromine atoms – ozone-destroying gases that originate from chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and break ozone down into individual oxygen molecules “–
Was the claimed release of chlorine and bromine from the supposed CFC’s actually measured and verified during the re-emergence of the ozone holes?
What were the measured levels in ppm of Chlorine and Bromine at those levels where ozone was supposedly broken down during the re-emergence of the ozone holes?
If that data cannot be presented as verified data and I have never seen any such real actual measured data, output from a very dodgy models don’t count, then the whole basis of the claims that CFC’s and their breakdown products, chlorine and bromine are responsible for the ozone holes is null and void and throw all of those claims onto the scrap heap of “failed science” history.
The great Ozone Hole scam cost the western world’s economies about 130 billion 1998 dollars. DuPont was the single biggest beneficiary as they held the patents for the replacements for CFC’s, replacements which are now suspected of possibly being somewhat carcinogenic.
The Ozone Hole scam was little more than a warm up exercise for the Great Global Warming scam.
A dose of good old cheap LPG in place of any of the current CFC replacements in your A/C gives better cooling, cooler compressor head temperatures and much lower system pressures and is nowhere near as hard on the A/C’s components.
And a special blend of LPG is being used increasingly in A/C’s here in Australia despite a lot of pressure and lobbying from the chemical company producers of the CFC replacements.

So did I get this correct. They are attributing this somewhat reduced ozone concentration to an unusually strong Arctic Vortex. I suspect it is nowhere near as strong as the circumpolar vortex around Antarctica. And guess what? Down in the south there is a seasonal ozone hole. And that hole can exist because it is isolated from the rest of the Southern Hemisphere where ozone is still being created. SO are ozone holes the result of the action of chloroflourocarbons or are they a natural consequence of wind?

Makes you think that is UV light is so dangerous to marine life why is it that all the nature shows show marine life to be more abundant than anywhere at the poles who always seem to lack in ozone?