NASA Reveals New Results From Inside the Ozone Hole – Dec. 11, 2013

NASA scientists have revealed the inner workings of the ozone hole that forms annually over Antarctica and found that declining chlorine in the stratosphere has not yet caused a recovery of the ozone hole.
More than 20 years after the Montreal Protocol agreement limited human emissions of ozone-depleting substances, satellites have monitored the area of the annual ozone hole and watched it essentially stabilize, ceasing to grow substantially larger. However, two new studies show that signs of recovery are not yet present, and that temperature and winds are still driving any annual changes in ozone hole size.
“Ozone holes with smaller areas and a larger total amount of ozone are not necessarily evidence of recovery attributable to the expected chlorine decline,” said Susan Strahan of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “That assumption is like trying to understand what’s wrong with your car’s engine without lifting the hood.”
To find out what’s been happening under the ozone hole’s hood, Strahan and Natalya Kramarova, also of NASA Goddard, used satellite data to peer inside the hole. The research was presented Wednesday at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.
Kramarova tackled the 2012 ozone hole, the second-smallest hole since the mid 1980s. To find out what caused the hole’s diminutive area, she turned to data from the NASA-NOAA Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership satellite, and gained the first look inside the hole with the satellite’s Ozone Mapper and Profiler Suite’s Limb Profiler. Next, data were converted into a map that shows how the amount of ozone differed with altitude throughout the stratosphere in the center of the hole during the 2012 season, from September through November.
The map revealed that the 2012 ozone hole was more complex than previously thought. Increases of ozone at upper altitudes in early October, carried there by winds, occurred above the ozone destruction in the lower stratosphere.
“Our work shows that the classic metrics based on the total ozone values have limitations – they don’t tell us the whole story,” Kramarova said.

The classic metrics create the impression that the ozone hole has improved as a result of the Montreal protocol. In reality, meteorology was responsible for the increased ozone and resulting smaller hole, as ozone-depleting substances that year were still elevated. The study has been submitted to the journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
Separate research led by Strahan tackled the holes of 2006 and 2011 – two of the largest and deepest holes in the past decade. Despite their similar area, however, Strahan shows that they became that way for very different reasons.
Strahan used data from the NASA Aura satellite’s Microwave Limb Sounder to track the amount of nitrous oxide, a tracer gas inversely related to the amount of ozone depleting chlorine. The researchers were surprised to find that the holes of 2006 and 2011 contained different amounts of ozone-depleting chlorine. Given that fact, how could the two holes be equally severe?
The researchers next used a model to simulate the chemistry and winds of the atmosphere. Then they re-ran the simulation with the ozone-destroying reactions turned off to understand the role that the winds played in bringing ozone to the Antarctic. Results showed that in 2011, there was less ozone destruction than in 2006 because the winds transported less ozone to the Antarctic – so there was less ozone to lose. This was a meteorological, not chemical effect. In contrast, wind blew more ozone to the Antarctic in 2006 and thus there was more ozone destruction. The research has been submitted to the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
This work shows that the severity of the ozone hole as measured by the classic total column measurements does not reveal the significant year-to-year variations in the two factors that control ozone: the winds that bring ozone to the Antarctic and the chemical loss due to chlorine.
Until chlorine levels in the lower stratosphere decline below the early 1990s level – expected sometime after 2015 but likely by 2030 – temperature and winds will continue to dictate the variable area of the hole in any given year. Not until after the mid 2030s will the decline stratospheric chlorine be the primary factor in the decline of ozone hole area.
“We are still in the period where small changes in chlorine do not affect the area of the ozone hole, which is why it’s too soon to say the ozone hole is recovering,” Strahan said. “We’re going into a period of large variability and there will be bumps in the road before we can identify a clear recovery.”
Related Links
› NASA Goddard’s Ozone Hole Watch website
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“That assumption is like trying to understand what’s wrong with your car’s engine without lifting the hood.”
In other words the Montreal Protocol was a hoax? Oh.
NASA, did the UN even authorize you to admit that?
The ozone hole hoax was good practice for becoming a climate skeptic. All of the same ingredients; media hype, end of the world predictions and a boogieman that actually benefited mankind.
The researchers next used a model to simulate the chemistry and winds of the atmosphere.
————————————
We’re saved!
Or CFCs were not the primary driver of the OBSERVED ozone hole: meaning that even without CFCs, there would still be a significantly large hole in the ozone layer. CFCs could make an ozone hole worse, but no-CFCs won’t make the hole completely collapse.
Like CO2 and the thermal regulation of the planet, the assumption is that CFCs control the size of the Antarctic ozone hole. Why? Because “we” don’t have any other idea about what might cause large variations in its size.
The obsessive drive for a Unique Solution is everywhere politicians, scientists and laymen want or need simple solutions easily and cheaply put in-place.
There was a multinational that did very well out of this scam, but its name eludes me.
I do not read anything about a huge factor with the decline in sun spot activity in last two cycles and #24 being the lowest in some 200 years.
High sunspot activity and CME’s destroyes Ozone cooling the stratosphere.
Ozone layer has been getting a break since 2008 with the quiet sun but ozone destroying CFC’s are still in lots of older products snd are leaking out the CFC’s.
I have see in the past few years people will punch a hole in old AC unit containing CFC’s so they do not have to pay for propper removal of the cfc’s in the unit.
Chlorine in the atmosphere has natural sources. The ocean releases far more chlorine into the atmosphere than CFCs. It was always about control, never about science.
I seem to recall several studies about bromides(?) being produced off of ocean waves and fresh Arctic snow…. or do those affect ozone at the wrong places?
“That assumption is like trying to understand what’s wrong with your car’s engine without lifting the hood.”
“In other words the Montreal Protocol was a hoax?”
Hoax? Of course not. The new climate rule, as outlined by the latest IPCC report, states that science should increase certainty of an atmospheric process as time goes on………..up to 95% when empirical data contradicts your expectations.
After all, real climate scientists are never wrong, the data just needs to be interpreted the right way.
Al Gore, not being a real climate scientist, jumped the gun in 2006 by stating “The science is settled”. The IPCC needed another 7 years, using their unique interpretation of contradictory empirical data to come to that conclusion.
All based on another failed presumption of attribution.
Sheesh! Another instance of quack science layered on top of a bogus hypothesis, sprinkled with predictions of doom and destruction.
Anyone want to want to recall DDT? Never had any connection with raptor eggshells or mortality or survivability. Another perfectly good chemical (for killing malaria-bearing mosquitos) was eliminated from the human arsenal of promoting better living standards. Rachel Carson may rot in Hell for her role in the preventable deaths of millions of poor children.
As a chronic asthmatic, I need a rescue inhaler that used to be charged with a very effective propellant of halogenated-hydrocarbons. Got sacked by the “Montreal Protocol” and the replacement propellant ain’t worth sh*t.
This is not “Better living through chemistry”, as the old ad slogan stated
Make sure to let the idiots at the DIscovery channel know this.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t the ozone hole exist in the first satellite records, and it was concluded that the hole was unnatural (hence the Montreal Protocol)? Was there ever any non-satellite evidence that stratospheric ozone was being depleted before the satellites reported the “hole”?
I’m of the impression that the answer is “no”, but I cannot find a reference to back my hypothesis.
As I recall, the proposal that CFCs were the main drivers for the loss of ozone was made on lab experiments and models alone, with little or no sampling and understanding of what was actually going on. This is not surprising – a full sampling program of the polar stratosphere in the 1980s would have been tricky and costly.
I had heard that the main reason that the Protocol was agreed was that DuPont suddenly changed their minds and supported it. And that this was because their patents on CFCs were about to run out, and they were going to lose a valuable part of their product list. If CFCs could be made illegal, people would have to use second-best substitutes, which DuPont had been inventing (in a vain attempt to make a better CFC), and which DuPont still had patents on…
I guess we’ll never know…
The ozone layer is not homogeneous. It has pillars like a plasma formation. So any current model will fail if trying to predict anything about it like depletion from CFC’s….
In other news Oh No’s….
Newly discovered greenhouse gas ‘7,000 times more powerful than CO2’
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/10/new-greenhouse-gas-powerful-chemical-perfluorotributylamine
Is it just possible that the Ozone hole has always been there?
@ur momisugly Geology Jim — re: Rachel Carson, regardless of where she ended up, you are right about one thing: she was a main cause of the deaths of millions.
I’m very sorry to hear that you have to deal with such a lousy inhaler situation. It’s one thing for the Envirostalinists to force us to use detergents and household cleaners that aren’t worth a rat’s squeak, but, it is just plain ev1l that they deny you effective medicine. Take care, WUWT ally for truth.
********************************
“… wind blew more ozone to the Antarctic in 2006 and thus there was more ozone destruction.”
And more people live along the beaches, so more people die in hurricanes (“Hurricanes More Deadly Now! Story at 11”), and…. on and on — ad nauseum.
Way to get the truth out, all you fine commenters of WUWT!!
HURRAH FOR AN-THO-NY WATTS! A shining light for truth in the darkness of l1es and corruption that is the “science community.”
Maybe they shouldn’t assume the chemistry model is correct if the real results don’t match the model. Wait, we believe models and not our lying eyes.
DocattheAutopsy:
The first satellites that specifically went looking for ozone depletion found the hole, but for all we know the hole has been there for hundreds, thousands, or millions of years or longer. As far as I know, there is no conclusive data indicating that the hole was not there prior to the widespread use of CFC’s.
My daughters inhaler went from a $5 copay to a $35 copay due to the new degraded but now patent protected version of the propellant. Blame Dupont for lobbying to change it as well as our avaricious incompetent legislators who saw the campaign dollars.
The Ozone hole scare looks just like Catastrophic Runaway Man-Made Global Warming. It’s a pile of horse manure fit for the very best kept gardens. The ozone hole is most probably made a little bigger by man’s CFS but some argue that the ozone hole has always been there.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/20/daleo-on-ozone-hole-it-is-very-likely-to-have-been-there-forever/
Apparently there is a North Pole ozone hole as well as a Tibetan hole. How many more holes can I take?
I have my doubts about the DDT story as well, but pelicans have definitely come back in LA and I think elsewhere. Has anyone seen explanations of this that do not involve DDT? I have not looked into the papers that linked DDT to weak shells, but have been meaning to.
If you suspect that something is causing a problem and you apply the fix for that but somehow it doesn’t cause a recovery would you at some point conclude that you were mistaken about the cause in the first place? Why do they stick to their original theories so adamantly? I think it’s time to reevaluate.
How about mankind just let the Earth get on with what it does and not worry about trying to pin the blame on anyone or anything.
Not one of the doomsayers has ever gotten anything right. They squawk and strut and tear their hair and look for billion dollar handouts (you’d think that’s enough to make anyone twig to what’s going on). After centuries of repeated shenanigans, is it too much to suppose that one day – ooh, maybe in a couple more millennium – human beings might pull themselves together, give each and every doomsayer that pops up a swift kick in the pants (or mandatory jail time), and get on with living and enjoying life?
How peaceful life would be, and what marvels could we learn, if each and every generation were not taught guilt just for being alive? Too much to hope for? Oh, well.
How much chlorine is released into the atmosphere from everyday uses like laundry and swimming pools? Seems to me that IF chlorine is responsible they just banned something that would let them make more money.