Mysterious new man-made gases pose threat to ozone layer…

Image Credits: NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center

By WUWT Regular “Just The Facts”

On the heels of Andrew Dessler’s Ozone Hole tweet, we have from the BBC:

“Researchers from the University of East Anglia have discovered evidence of four new gases that can destroy ozone and are getting into the atmosphere from as yet unidentified sources.”

“Scientists have identified four new man-made gases that are contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer.

Two of the gases are accumulating at a rate that is causing concern among researchers.”

“Other scientists acknowledged that while the current concentrations of these gases are small and they don’t present an immediate concern, work would have to be done to identify their origin.

“This paper highlights that ozone depletion is not yet yesterday’s story,” said Prof Piers Forster, from the University of Leeds.

“The concentrations found in this study are tiny. Nevertheless, this paper reminds us we need to be vigilant and continually monitor the atmosphere for even small amounts of these gases creeping up, either through accidental or unplanned emissions.

“Of the four species identified, CFC-113a seems the most worrying as there is a very small but growing emission source somewhere, maybe from agricultural insecticides. We should find it and take it out of production.”

Read More

The paper “Newly detected ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere” Laube et al., paywalled, can be found here:

“Ozone-depleting substances emitted through human activities cause large-scale damage to the stratospheric ozone layer, and influence global climate. Consequently, the production of many of these substances has been phased out; prominent examples are the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and their intermediate replacements, the hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). So far, seven types of CFC and six types of HCFC have been shown to contribute to stratospheric ozone destruction1, 2. Here, we report the detection and quantification of a further three CFCs and one HCFC.”

“Our observations on air samples collected in remote regions of the atmosphere show the presence of four previously undetected ozone-depleting substances (ODSs). We have identified and quantified CFC-112 (CFCl2CFCl2), CFC-112a (CF2ClCCl3), CFC-113a (CF3CCl3) and HCFC-133a (CF3CH2Cl) in the atmosphere (Fig. 1). We have reconstructed their past abundances from air extracted from deep polar firn, which can provide a natural archive of atmospheric composition up to about a century back in time5. Our firn air measurements suggest that all four newly reported compounds are anthropogenic (see also Supplementary Information), with insignificant atmospheric abundances before the 1960s.”

For reference, the images the head of this article show the current Northern “Ozone Hole” within the Northern Polar Vortex, at 10 hPa/mb – Approximately 31,000 meters (101,700 feet). Draw your own conclusions…

About these ads
This entry was posted in CFC's, Ozone, Polar Vortex and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

167 Responses to Mysterious new man-made gases pose threat to ozone layer…

  1. sadbutmadlad says:

    The Ozone-CFC Debacle: Hasty Action, Shaky Science – http://heartland.org/policy-documents/ozone-cfc-debacle-hasty-action-shaky-science

  2. Alvin says:

    Sounds like another strawman argument.

  3. Richdo says:

    “Shaka, when the walls fell”.

  4. justsomeguy31167 says:

    I guess when you know the global warming meme is dying, it is time to start a new paranoia fest for the greenies.

  5. A.D. Everard says:

    “Other scientists acknowledged that while the current concentrations of these gases are small and they don’t present an immediate concern, work would have to be done to identify their origin.”

    In other words: “We’re for sale. Give us lots of money and we’ll point the finger at some aspect of civilization and ramp up the threat. Act now and we’ll throw in a hockey stick for free.”

  6. Chris @NJSnowFan says:

    They say could be from agricultural insecticides but what about resins from carbon fiber resins from wind turbine blades and solar panel manufacturing new types of Industry with new chemicals

  7. Caleb says:

    Obviously CO2 is no longer the gravy train it once was. Time to rustle up a new bogeyman (or six.)

  8. Chris @NJSnowFan says:

    There are many types of men chemicals also from pharmaceutical companies

  9. Sean Peake says:

    I went looking for the underlying BS and found it in the last line: agricultural insecticides.

  10. Joe Public says:

    “Two of the gases are accumulating at a rate that is causing concern among researchers.”

    Could that rate be ‘insignificant’, as in:- insufficient to justify numerous research grants?

  11. Read “UEA” and stopped reading. How many think that credible science is done there? Perhaps there is, but if it says “UEA” on anything, I hesitate to read it except for entertainment purposes. Even scanning it, the BS meter works overtime. I wonder if they realize how much damage they have done to their reputation?

  12. Latitude says:

    memo to staff: People aren’t buying the whole CO2 thing any more…..we need to come up with at least four more dangerous man-made gasses

  13. nigelf says:

    Draw your own conclusions…

    I have, and it’s not very flattering to those pushing this (yet another) scam.
    I’m catastrophied out and don’t believe one iota of what they claim and they only have themselves to blame.

  14. johanna says:

    Somehow, I don’t think that this dog is gonna hunt. Back to the drawing-board, grant junkies!

  15. Severian says:

    In other words, our hysterical bleatings and banning of Freon didn’t stop people from being able to have air conditioning, the plebes need to suffer for Mother Gaia, they were too darned smart and found a way to do it without old Freon. We’ll fix their wagon, and their little dog too!

  16. Gary Pearse says:

    ““Researchers from the University of East Anglia have discovered evidence of four new gases that can destroy ozone and are getting into the atmosphere”.

    Whack-a-moley science. NASA reports ozone hole is not going away a month ago and UEA comes out with a paper discovering “new” substances – suspiciously all Chlorfluorocarbons. Hmm … this is a bit over the top. The rapid response team is good!

    With the complex nature of the chemistry involving UV light turning loose individual Cl atoms, how do these guys know that they aren’t products of the reaction with the old CFC. What if they are natural. Seawater contains some fluorine (<1ppm) and chlorine is known to be abundant enough from salt spray from the sea to put HCl adrift. Add the "newly discovered" organic chemical haze from forests to the mix….

    I think O-hole alarmists have been getting the jitters recently with, despite 35yrs of UV eating up CFCs the O-hole just won't go away and CFCs really should have been significantly reduced by now to show some progress. Okay, consensadores, we got to find more bad, secret ozone destroyers. When the hockey stick was broken, new hockey stick papers popped out like pop corn; when we had 1/6th of a century of no warming, we started getting papers on hot spots whizzing around the world to fast to keep track of and the devious heat also started heading for the ocean deeps. Oh and Dessler, it appears you didn't save our lives after all! Were still going to be doomed.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/08/claim-what-would-have-happened-to-the-ozone-layer-if-chlorofluorocarbons-cfcs-had-not-been-regulated/

  17. jorgekafkazar says:

    drivel

  18. Robert of Ottawa says:

    CFC-113a seems the most worrying as there is a very small but growing emission source somewhere, maybe from agricultural insecticides

    And THERE is the target of this BS.

    The O-hole has remained pretty much the same for all the years of observation; I’d say it’s a natural phenomenon due to, oh say, magnetic fields, particle streams and suchlike.

  19. Hans Erren says:

    lets see: ban Agricultural pesticides, cause global famine, blame climate skeptics.

  20. Bill H says:

    Target mans ability to safely store food.. Create Food.. Just more of the same from these slugs.

  21. Hans Erren says:

    similar to: ban nuclear energy, cause global warming, blame fossil fuel industry

  22. John says:

    “The researchers are concerned”. How the liberal media loves the University of East Angliaphile.

    My guess the chemicals are emitted from the manufacture of compact fluorescent light bulbs.

  23. H.R. says:

    I’m pretty sure that research grants are causing the ozone hole. Stop funding ozone hole research and you’ll never hear another peep about that pesky ozone hole.

  24. davidmhoffer says:

    “Of the four species identified, CFC-113a seems the most worrying as there is a very small but growing emission source somewhere,

    Yeah… like maybe someone somewhere still makes the stuff by the barrel? Nah, couldn’t be. If that existed, it would be run by mad scientists in a secret lab with security guards and and anyone who found out about it would be shot and dropped in the ocean with cement boots to keep the info out of the public. You’d never be able to just google it and buy it by the barrel right off the internet, that would never happen….

    http://sporlan.en.alibaba.com/product/520950722-50102950/CFC_113A_Refrigerant_Gas_Sale.html

  25. fhhaynie says:

    Has anybody ever measured the amount of CFCs or chlorine actually in the “ozone hole” over time?

  26. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    This may be ground breaking research and the authors may be absolutely correct. But after reading Phil Jones emails, I simply cannot take anything that comes from the University of East Anglia seriously.

  27. Severian says:

    “Has anybody ever measured the amount of CFCs or chlorine actually in the “ozone hole” over time?”
    Surely you jest? There’s a computer model behind every tree!

  28. R. Shearer says:

    Supplemental information at least is not behind a pay wall. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ngeo2109-s1.pdf

  29. sabretruthtiger says:

    …and if you remove agricultural insecticides farmers will have no choice but to buy Monsanto’s GMO crops. Then there’s reduced crop yields, starvation… the usual Globalist Order out of chaos tactics toward a world control grid.

  30. Tom Trevor says:

    “Ozone-depleting substances emitted through human activities cause large-scale damage to the stratospheric ozone layer, and influence global climate”
    Um, um, well yeah maybe, but since ozone is a greenhouse gas the influence should be one of lowering temperatures which if alarmists are right should be a good thing.

  31. rogerknights says:

    Too much Guacamole?

  32. James the Elder says:

    We always say: “You just can’t make this $hit up.” They, however, seemed to have found a way.

  33. redc1c4 says:

    “We should find it and take it out of production.”

    that tells you everything you need to know: Luddites on the march again!

  34. philincalifornia says:

    Do I have to read it ?? The words “East” and “Anglia” should be a clue as to why not, but I probably will – maybe when I need an ironic laugh.

  35. Damian says:

    It is further believed that though the concentrations of these gasses are small the govt grant potential is rather large. Woo woo the gravy train is leaving the station.

  36. philjourdan says:

    They are not out to save the planet but to destroy mankind.

  37. Bill Illis says:

    The only threat to the Ozone layer is stratospheric volcano eruptions. Or at least that is what the actual data says. This seems to be an issue that climate science/gravy train ignores as much as possible.

  38. Konrad says:

    Researchers from the University of East Anglia declare –

    “Good news everybody! We’ve discovered fresh supplies of Doooom!”

    But then they would, wouldn’t they? No-one is buying their old stock and it’s seriously past its use-by date.

  39. AllanJ says:

    Science is easy when you start with two simple postulates:

    Humans bad.
    Nature good.

  40. bushbunny says:

    Personally I don’t like any kind of insecticides, but it is hard to live without them. But if they were that dangerous, they would affect humans and animals too. We now take great care where we spray them, and there are laws governing this. Such as wind drift, aerial spraying etc. And protective clothes and masks. These jokers are really don’t meet the mustard.

  41. bushbunny says:

    Allan that is their philosophy and unfortunately in someways we have damaged the landscape, but nature seems to rebound well, one cliches used by archaeology and palaeoanthropologists is
    “Humans propose but nature deposes” No rain, crops and people die. Sudden volcanic eruptions can cool the planet and cause a nuclear winter. And large density cities cause their own UHI and pollution. etc, etc., etc. And an other glacial period will greatly harm the Northern Hemisphere, don’t you think they already know this? That’s why they are ignoring the medieval
    mini ice age.

  42. When they have exhausted (excuse the pun!) the hazards to the planet of man-made gases, there are two other states of matter (man-made) that no doubt will lead to Armageddon!
    Does a degree from the University of East Anglia have the initials BAtdwSc (Bugger All to do with Science) ?

  43. ldd says:

    Why the heck would anyone listen to these ahem, “experts” about anything at this point?
    Eye-roll worthy, is all.

  44. Luke Warmist says:

    “……with insignificant atmospheric abundances before the 1960s.”

      Ummm, somebody help this dumb engineer out. So they occur naturally, but ‘not in abundance’?

  45. Analytical instruments are becoming so sensitive that you find practically everything anywhere you want. If I want to find cancer in your toothpaste or explosives in your bubble gum, I will. We can expect ever more of these scare stories in the future.

  46. Col Mosby says:

    What leads these folks to claim these agents “could be from agricultural insecticides.”? That’s a bizarre thing to claim without explanation. To throw in my own out-of-left-field possible origin : could solar panels be emitting such agents? After all, agricultural insecticides have been around for a very long time, solar panels not very long.

  47. Karl says:

    Fluorinated Drinking Water (Fluorine) and Water Treatment (Chlorine and carbon and bacteria)?? (remember fluorine started to be added post WWII but really ramped up in the 1960’s)

    Oh nooes!!!

    Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone?

    That’s my hypothesis, where is my grant for the research and to develop an alternative??????

    Jut give me money, money, that’s what I want.

  48. Peter Laux says:

    Zombie Science strikes again.

    So lets get this right, CFC’s don’t “destroy the ozone” above Industrial Centres where they are released but migrate too & have an annual jamboree and convention every year at the same time in Antarctica.
    Extraordinary really when hardly any atmospheric water vapor from other latitudes can penetrate the Circumpolar winds surrounding Antarctica, thus making it the driest continent on earth.

    So ozone is not in a layer but is formed in the Ionosphere as solar UV hits O2 – this “hole” forms during the Antarctic winter where no UV has been wrecking O2 to form Ozone – and we blame a gas as the ‘guilty party’ ………. Detective Colombo would still be asking questions !

  49. john robertson says:

    Now to pull some gaseous names out of my..

    The odour of desperation in 4 flavours.
    Wet climate scientist, more foul than we dog.
    Frightened parasite, oh my god, I’m going to have to get a job.
    Musty academia, long past its best.
    Stale sponge, the grants are over.

    Yes terrible gases are building up in the atmosphere of East Anglia, better nuke it , before they spread.
    Thats the precautionary principle ain’t it?

  50. SIGINT EX says:

    Ah ! The busy Boffins of the Anglican Church speak. Hallowed be thy name.
    A reference for the virus of Anglicanism ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglicanism

    Yes. What a conundrum. The “ozone hole” north and south since 1989 comes and goes, comes and goes, seemingly irrespective of the prescriptions of the Boffins of the Anglican Church.

    How dreadful.

    The Boffins since 1987 must be in a terrible fixation.

    Ah Ha !

    The “Keeling Curve” keeps ever rising. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve

    Yet Global Temperatures on average are, flat.

    Robin, “Batman, could it be that the Earth’s atmosphere in regards to CO2 concentration, assuming the measurement of CO2 concentration is legitimate, is insensitive to CO2 concentration ?

    Batman, “If we assume the CO2 concentrations are legitimate then both the Montreal Protocol and the assumptions of IPCC Anthropogenic Global Warming are false.”

    [Radio Transmissions disrupted by USA thermonuclear detonations in the Thermosphere above Crimea]

    Batman, “Ditto. Now you see the evil we are up against.”

  51. Katherine says:

    “Researchers from the University of East Anglia have discovered evidence of four new gases that can destroy ozone and are getting into the atmosphere from as yet unidentified sources.

    “Scientists have identified four new man-made gases that are contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer.

    Two of the gases are accumulating at a rate that is causing concern among researchers.””

    If the sources are unidentified, how can they say the gases are man-made? How do they know there isn’t a natural source for the gases? After all, there are natural sources for CFCs; for example, volcanic processes, bacteria, fungi, plants, lichen, insects, and marine animals.

  52. JohnB says:

    Alumni from the other course at East Anglia perhaps?

  53. Mike Tremblay says:

    I hate to break it to these researchers, but these are not ‘new’ gases. All were identified in the Montreal Protocol as ODS (Ozone depleting substances) back in 1989, and their production, or use in production of other than non-ODS materials was banned, or due to be phased out completely by 2030 – the phase out of production is currently at 98%. The hyperbole that these are ‘new’ gases and increased threats to the ozone layer has no place in responsible scientific research when simply looking at the ODS listing at the EPA’s website shows that they are already considered.

  54. Chuck Nolan says:

    A.D. Everard says:
    March 9, 2014 at 3:42 pm
    In other words: “We’re for sale. Give us lots of money and we’ll point the finger at some aspect of civilization and ramp up the threat. Act now and we’ll throw in a hockey stick for free.”
    —————————————————
    No, no, no, no, no A.D.
    Not in other words.
    Those are the words.
    And I wouldn’t be surprised to learn they knew it all along.
    Except, I believe I’ve read somewhere they even offer a 100% money back (you wish) guarantee the data will display a hockey stick with extensive torturing.
    cn

  55. Peter Laux says: March 9, 2014 at 6:36 pm

    So lets get this right, CFC’s don’t “destroy the ozone” above Industrial Centres where they are released but migrate too & have an annual jamboree and convention every year at the same time in Antarctica.
    Extraordinary really when hardly any atmospheric water vapor from other latitudes can penetrate the Circumpolar winds surrounding Antarctica, thus making it the driest continent on earth.

    Yes, there are other “holes” along with the ozone one, i.e.

    “The walls of the polar vortex act as the boundaries for the extraordinary changes in chemical concentrations. Now the polar vortex can be considered a sealed chemical reactor bowl, containing a water vapor hole, a nitrogen oxide hole and an ozone hole, all occurring simultaneously (Labitzke and Kunze 2005)”

    http://books.google.com/books?id=B93SSQrcAh4C&lpg=PA283&ots=d0-uBRjmyI&dq=%22water%20vapor%20hole%22%20polar%20vortex&pg=PA283#v=onepage&q=%22water%20vapor%20hole%22%20polar%20vortex&f=false

    “measurements of low methane concentrations in the vortex made by the HALOE instrument on board the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite.” Rapid descent of mesospheric air into the stratospheric polar vortex, AGU 1993

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/93GL01104/abstract

    “The ozone hole is in the center of a spiraling mass of air over the Antarctic that is called the polar vortex. The vortex is not stationary and sometimes moves as far north as the southern half of South America, taking the ozone hole with it.”

    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/HALOE-Ozone.html

    So ozone is not in a layer but is formed in the Ionosphere as solar UV hits O2 – this “hole” forms during the Antarctic winter where no UV has been wrecking O2 to form Ozone – and we blame a gas as the ‘guilty party’ ………. Detective Colombo would still be asking questions !

    Furthermore for Colombo, CFCs do not appear offer a plausible explanation for Northern “Ozone Hole”, i.e. per NASA:

    http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/miniholes_NH.html

    “The term “mini-hole” is derived from a comparison to the Antarctic ozone hole. However, a mini-hole is quite a bit different from the ozone hole in fundamental ways. First, mini-holes are much smaller in area coverage than the Antarctic ozone hole (as the name suggests). Second, while the Antarctic ozone hole is caused by high concentrations of chlorine and bromine derived from man-made chemicals, a mini-hole is a natural phenomena that is caused by particular weather patterns. Third, ozone is irreversibly depleted by man-made chemicals in the Antarctic ozone hole. In a mini-hole, ozone is rearranged by the weather systems and the ozone returns to its initial levels after the these weather systems pass.”

    “The flow around this low PV is in a clockwise direction. This push of low PV air northward creates what is known as an anticyclonic flow, and low PV air generally coincides with the ozone mini-hole. The middle center panel shows that the location of the mini-hole is near the edge of the polar vortex. Column ozone is low for two reasons. First, midlatitude air at 420 K has low values of ozone. Second, the low PV values (blue color) at 420 K push below the higher value PV at 500 K (green and orange) and creates a lifting circulation. This lifting motion decreases ozone density in the lower stratosphere. The combined effects of a push northward of low ozone values with a density decrease by the lifting motion acts to dramatically decrease the total column ozone. This movement of weather systems at 420 K (18 km) and 500 K (22.5 km) creates the mini-hole.

    An “anti” mini-hole of total ozone (high ozone) can be found to the west of the mini-hole on 31 January, indicated by the black “Y”. In this situation, high PV values at 420 K push down from the polar region and under-ride low PV values at 500 K. This creates a sinking motion that increases total column ozone, exactly the opposite motion from what creates the mini-hole. In the rightmost images, the weather systems are drifting off and dissipating, so the ozone levels return back to their normal state.

    NOAA – National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) – Click the pic to view at source

    Above are:

    Northern hemisphere images for 24 January, 31 January, and 4 February of 2012. Top row: total column ozone; middle row: potential vorticity on the 500 K potential temperature surface; bottom row: potential vorticity on the 420 K potential temperature surface. The mini-hole is the prominent dark blue area in the top middle image, indicated with a black “X”. A corresponding area of high ozone values is indicated with a “Y”.

  56. Gunga Din says:

    Robert of Ottawa says:
    March 9, 2014 at 4:02 pm

    CFC-113a seems the most worrying as there is a very small but growing emission source somewhere, maybe from agricultural insecticides

    And THERE is the target of this BS.

    The O-hole has remained pretty much the same for all the years of observation; I’d say it’s a natural phenomenon due to, oh say, magnetic fields, particle streams and suchlike.

    =====================================================================
    And whichever pole is pointed away from the Sun as winter and summer continue.

  57. Paul Coppin says:

    I guess somebody has to say it: It’s not clear these guys know an o-hole from an a-hole…

  58. Mike Tremblay says:

    Katherine says:
    March 9, 2014 at 6:41 pm
    If the sources are unidentified, how can they say the gases are man-made? How do they know there isn’t a natural source for the gases? After all, there are natural sources for CFCs; for example, volcanic processes, bacteria, fungi, plants, lichen, insects, and marine animals.
    ———————————————————————————————————————-
    These people refuse to acknowledge that most ODS have a natural source. The natural concentrations of ODS cannot possibly be known since man-made ODS production began in the 1930s and there is no ODS data prior to that which was gathered during the International Geophysical Year of 1959. They fail to recognize that they have no idea of what the concentration of ODS in the stratosphere was prior to about 1978 when they began regular sampling for ODS – I suspect that because they call these ‘new’, these specific gases weren’t even looked for in previous sampling and thus they have no idea what their concentrations were prior to their current research. They are probably basing previous unknown concentrations on a model developed without sufficient data as well since it is nearly impossible to calculate the background concentrations of ODS from natural sources.

  59. Peter Laux says: March 9, 2014 at 6:36 pm

    Detective Colombo would still be asking questions !

    Perhaps something like, if “Ozone Holes” form naturally within Northern Polar Vortex, why would we assume that the “Ozone Hole” that forms in the Southern Polar Vortex is caused by CFCs?

  60. bushbunny says:

    Mike I agree with your comment. As far as the Antarctic ozone hole it is above the ring of fire and there are active volcanoes in the Antarctic region. Anyone know how we can plug up volcanoes,
    LOL

  61. otsar says:

    R113a , CAS No 75. may be purchased from Zejiang China. It may be purchased in 250Kg ISO tanks. It is used as a precursor for other useful molecules such as R134a. I am not surprised that they claim not to know the major source. It can be easily found on the web. They probably are afraid to mention it.

  62. Here is the “Ozone Hole” within the Northern Polar Vortex on January 30th, 2014 at 30 hPa/mb – Approximately 23,700 meters (77,800 feet):

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source

    What is particularly interesting is that there is an “Ozone Hole”, within an “Ozone Hole”, within another “Ozone Hole”…

  63. goldminor says:

    Insanity at it’s finest. A tiny amount , but it may get worse. Watch out for the kitchen sink, they must be about ready to throw that in, also.

  64. Konrad says:

    Bill Illis says:
    March 9, 2014 at 5:01 pm
    ———————————
    If any surface gases were to have an effect on ozone levels, then volcanic bromine and chlorine would clearly outweigh any human effort.

    However it should be noted that ozone being thin to non-existent over the poles was predicted from sounding rocket data before satellites.

    The reason for natural ozone holes is simple physics. Solar UV produces atomic oxygen (O) by splitting diatomic oxygen (O2) molecules. If there is sufficient atmospheric density where this occurs atomic oxygen can combine with O2 to produce ozone (O3). The Ozone produced is highly reactive and can be destroyed even by a collision with an O2 molecule. This means there is a limited altitude at which ozone will exist and its production and destruction is a continuous and rapid process.

    Closer to the poles, the angle of incidence of UV radiation, relative to perpendicular to the atmosphere, increases. This means that UV must pass through more low density gas at higher altitude. The UV here is being absorbed before it reaches a level where atomic oxygen produced has much chance of collision with O2 and recombination into O3. The holes in the ozone layer are right where they are supposed to be.

    The UN has been seriously compromised by the collapse of the global warming inanity. The revival of the Ozone hole scare seems an attempt to allow the IPCC to be thrown under the bus while saving the WMO and UNEP. This however is unlikely to work in the age of the Internet. The propaganda pushed in the original scare blamed humans for the hole. New propaganda that “there should be a hole but humans are making it worse” cannot be built on this foundation.

  65. Luke Warmist says:

    …I think the source is Prius electrical fumes. Greenie pollution.

  66. Brant Ra says:

    justthefactswuwt says:
    March 9, 2014 at 7:15 pm
    “What is particularly interesting is that there is an “Ozone Hole”, within an “Ozone Hole”, within another “Ozone Hole”…”

    Just showing that the homogeneous layer model of the ozone is wrong. Its a plasma layer… The polar vortex probably has something to do with its yearly shape and size… CRISTA shows the ozone layer is built like a plasma layer between different density plasma’s surrounding a solid object.

    CRISTA and Related Papers
    “CRISTA ( CRyogenic Infrared Spectrometers and Telescopes for the Atmosphere) is
    a limb-scanning satellite experiment, designed and developed by the University of Wuppertal to measure infrared emissions of the earth’s atmosphere.

    Equipped with three telescopes and four spectrometers and cooled with liquid helium, CRISTA acquires global 3D-maps of temperature and atmospheric trace gases with very high horizontal and vertical resolution. The design enables the observation of small scale dynamical structures in the 10-150 km altitude region.”

    http://crista.uni-wuppertal.de/crista/publications.html

  67. philincalifornia says:

    Mike Tremblay says:
    March 9, 2014 at 6:47 pm
    I hate to break it to these researchers, but these are not ‘new’ gases. All were identified in the Montreal Protocol as ODS (Ozone depleting substances) back in 1989, and their production, or use in production of other than non-ODS materials was banned, or due to be phased out completely by 2030 – the phase out of production is currently at 98%. The hyperbole that these are ‘new’ gases and increased threats to the ozone layer has no place in responsible scientific research when simply looking at the ODS listing at the EPA’s website shows that they are already considered.
    ——————–
    Yep, right here:

    http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/ods/classtwo.html

  68. 97% sure my bs meter is pegged.

  69. Possible source of these vapors, Wattsupwiththat blog due to the posting of Walter K.

  70. Bill Sticker says:

    Ah. Sounds suspiciously like the climate units funding must be up for review.

  71. Santa Baby says:

    It’s about the 2014 state of fear awards? The competition is hard and lots of state funded are competing?

  72. hunter says:

    Let us not forget that eventually the boy who cried wolf was crying about a real wolf.
    CO2 obsession can cut both ways.
    It can make skeptics reflexively dismissive of real threats, simply because of the source of the warning.
    Let’s keep ourselves on the right side of things and learn more so we can ask informed questions.

  73. A Crooks of Adelaide says:

    “Two of the gases are accumulating at a rate that is causing concern among researchers.”

    Wake me up when it causes concern among people who are not financially dependant on this.

  74. ATheoK says:

    “Katherine says: March 9, 2014 at 6:41 pm

    “…Researchers from the University of East Anglia have discovered evidence of four new gases that can destroy ozone and are getting into the atmosphere from as yet unidentified sources.

    “Scientists have identified four new man-made gases that are contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer.

    Two of the gases are accumulating at a rate that is causing concern among researchers…””

    If the sources are unidentified, how can they say the gases are man-made? How do they know there isn’t a natural source for the gases? After all, there are natural sources for CFCs; for example, volcanic processes, bacteria, fungi, plants, lichen, insects, and marine animals.”

    Katherine nailed UEA bad science ergo assumptions in one shot. As others have regarding the physics and involved atmospherics.

    Good post and topic ‘Just the Facts’! I confess to almost not reading further when I hit that UEA obstacle. Ruined reputation, absurd science, silly publications supported by pal review, and real scientists suffocating within UEA forced consensus.

    Then again, perhaps UEA has been generating these vapors themselves cooking their strange brews in secret laboratories.

    One thing is certain, UEA researchers have been Bogarting their own fumes in shadowy closed rooms for too long.

  75. asybot says:

    @JohnB 6.43, The minute I saw the milkman episode I thought of UEA. Thanks for the laughs!

  76. Mike Webb says:

    A mystery only to the paper’s authors, to be sure.

    The interstellar medium is the source of the “unexpected” halides and nitrogen oxides, both of which have been visible to our spectroscopes for at least 40 years.

  77. gymnosperm says:

    “Ozone Hole”, within an “Ozone Hole”, within another “Ozone Hole”…
    And all within the lobe of the polar outbreak chillin’ the east coast. No lifting going on there. Sinking though. Makes sense that any vertical air movement through the layer would thin it.

  78. William McClenney says:

    OK. That’s twice in one week that:

    “we’re” all gonna die.”

    :-)

  79. littlepeaks says:

    Hmmm — don’t hear too much about sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), which supposedly has a “global warming potential of over 23,000 that of CO2.” Used a lot in electronics industry. Read that California is trying to limit it. I used to use it to check for leaks in a mass spectrometer (MS) set up in the negative chemical ionization (NCI) mode. The MS was so sensitive to SF6, that I could detect a minute leak in the instrument by spraying some into the air even when I was standing on the opposite side of the walkway.

  80. Anne Ominous says:

    justthefactswuwt says:
    What is particularly interesting is that there is an “Ozone Hole”, within an “Ozone Hole”, within another “Ozone Hole”…

    Not really, and not really. That is: it’s not really interesting, because there’s not really a hole within a hole. It’s simply a gradient. It looks like discrete regions because of the intervals used to color it.

    You wouldn’t look at a topographic map and say, “Look! There are little terraces at 20′ intervals around all those mountains!”

    But that’s kind of what you’re saying here.

  81. Hoser says:

    O3 is not at the top of the atmosphere. When the polar air goes into super deep-freeze mode, it drops like a rock taking likely all but the highest stratosphere with it. This circulation is what the polar cell does, I’m suggesting the flow goes into high gear in winter. Thus, would we not expect the O3 level to fall naturally every winter at the poles regardless of hypothetical CFC effects? What am I missing?

  82. Jimbo says:

    Like I said yesterday they have to prepare a excuse in case the Ozone Hole does not close. :)

  83. littlepeaks says:

    All —
    Please disregard my previous post. (Should be a law against “distracted posting”.

  84. Annabelle says:

    Agree with Jimbo. They are covering their backsides so that they will never have to admit they were wrong on CFCs. They can just blame yet another scare and it will all be “worse than we thought” as usual.

  85. NRG22 says:

    R. Shearer says:
    March 9, 2014 at 4:28 pm
    Supplemental information at least is not behind a pay wall. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ngeo2109-s1.pdf
    ————–
    On page 2:

    “It should be noted, that our observations do not prove that CFC-112, CFC-112a, CFC- 113a, and HCFC-133a are entirely man-made. If these substances are not conserved in firn air, or if they are produced by biologically mediated processes that have been enhanced in recent years such as by climate change, then there could be an alternate explanation for the observations reported here. Such alternate explanations cannot be entirely excluded but are very unlikely given the evidence for the industrial usage of these compounds.”

    I stopped reading after that.

  86. Philip T. Downman says:

    A real threat or just another hoax? What most of the above comments show, is the damage the CAGW-scam has done to the credibility of science. Whatever is reported hereafter, people won’t believe it. We make scornful comments at best or ignore it as just “green noise”. One day that might mask a signal.

  87. Brian H says:

    Un-ban Freon. The Hole is fine.

  88. ralfellis says:

    davidmhoffer says: March 9, 2014 at 4:18 pm
    You’d never be able to just google it and buy it by the barrel right off the internet, that would never happen….

    http://sporlan.en.alibaba.com/product/52095072250102950/CFC_113A_Refrigerant_Gas_Sale.html

    _____________________________________

    Nice one, Hoff. Made my day.

    Concerned greenie wrings his hands and implores the world to find the source of this terrible chemical that is destroying the entire biosphere, within ten years surely……..

    And Hoff finds is after 45 seconds on google…..

    Ha, ha.

  89. “[a] …growing emission source somewhere, maybe from agricultural insecticides. We should find it and take it out of production.”
    ————
    They want to emulate the success of the anti-DDT campaign.

    The DDT ban made rock stars out of “environmentalists”, made a long-lived fad out of eco-sanctimony, paved the way for the anthropogenic fill-in-the-blank industry, and has been killing off humans – much to the delight of the green-malthusians.

    What’s not to like?

  90. NRG22 says:

    OT

    This morning the tv was on Fox News, and I walked in when their segment Housecall was on with Dr. Marc Siegel and Dr. David Samadi. There was a male and female host but I don’t know their names, sorry.

    So the doctors are talking about a new “study” that says high protein diets are bad for you. Dr. Siegel hates Atkins and the Paleo diet because this study shows high protein diets “may” cause cancer. He goes on to say we know fat is bad for you, carbohydrates are bad for you, and protein is bad for you.

    The other 3 start laughing. The woman says something like, “Water doctor, is water okay?” Dr. Samadi asks Dr. Siegel what you’re supposed to eat then and he replies, “fruits and vegetables.” Dr. Samadi says, “You can’t live on that.” Dr Siegel says yes you can, with a little protein, and olive oil. He had studied up on vegetable protein the night before. The night before!

    Well now with this report and the possibility of pesticides making the hole in the ozone bigger, maybe fruits and veggies will be out too. At least we have water.

    It seems climate science isn’t the only bad science these days.

  91. pat says:

    imagine the papers to come from this 200+…

    AUDIO: 10 Mar: ABC Australia: The World Today: International sea ice conference in Hobart
    ELEANOR HALL: More than 200 scientists from around the world are spending this week in Hobart investigating why sea ice levels in the Arctic and Antarctic are responding differently to the warming of the planet…
    FELICITY OGILVIE: The conference is about sea ice in a changing environment. If you’re saying that the changes in sea ice are due to climate change, why then would ice be increasing in Antarctica?
    IAN SIMMONDS: There’s a number of reasons and again, we’re still coming to grips with what the total picture is in terms of the Antarctic. But in the Antarctic there are regions of sea ice which are rapidly decreasing in the so-called Bellingshausen Sea, which is near the Antarctic Peninsula. There’s a rapid decrease in sea ice there.
    But in other parts of the continent around the coast, there’s dramatic increases. And when you take all those together, you get an actual total increase in the amount of sea ice…
    IAN SIMMONDS: Now, there are features which are referred to in our business as “teleconnections,” which means if you impact on one part of the climate system, you’ll see a response in a remote location…

    http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s3960138.htm

  92. Mike Tremblay says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    March 9, 2014 at 4:18 pm

    Yeah… like maybe someone somewhere still makes the stuff by the barrel? Nah, couldn’t be. If that existed, it would be run by mad scientists in a secret lab with security guards and and anyone who found out about it would be shot and dropped in the ocean with cement boots to keep the info out of the public. You’d never be able to just google it and buy it by the barrel right off the internet, that would never happen….
    ———————————————————————————————————————-
    Don’t be fooled, these chemicals are still being produced in countries which were exempted under the rules of the Montreal Protocol. Freon 11 and others were still being produced in Mexico after their production was banned in the US. This was all part of the phase out system implemented. It is next to impossible to buy those chemicals and import them into Canada or the United States, and I assume the EU, despite the fact that they are available for sale on the internet, without exposing yourself to massive fines and criminal prosecution.

  93. pat says:

    website for the Hobart sea ice symposium:

    InternationalSymposium on Sea Ice in a Changing Environment

    http://seaice.acecrc.org.au/igs2014/scientific_workshops/a

  94. sophocles says:

    justsomeguy31167 says:
    March 9, 2014 at 3:40 pm

    I guess when you know the global warming meme is dying, it is time to start a new paranoia fest for the greenies.
    ======================================
    Perhaps the current witch-hunt’s death can be seen written on some walls.
    Let’s start a new one! More funding required!

  95. Mike Tremblay says:

    NRG22 says:
    March 9, 2014 at 11:51 pm

    OT
    ———————————————————————————————————————
    Ha!!
    Funny, it reminds me of an argument that I had about a Vegan diet. I maintain that a person will die from malnutrition if they live on a pure Vegan diet without supplements. Why? There is one amino acid which humans require which is only available in protein from an animal source, like milk or eggs. Humans are omnivores, which means, in essence, that we require to eat animal and vegetable proteins in order to maintain our proper nutritional levels. We also require minimal amounts of insignificant nutrients like Magnesium and even Uranium. To me, anyone who advocates anything less than a balance diet is a complete fool. This relates to my thinking on the Climate sciences by thinking that anyone who advocates a complete ban on anything is also a complete fool, because they have not investigated the consequences of their recommendations nor their advocacy.

  96. michael hart says:

    If you insert a mass spectrometer into a hole in the ground, or where the sun don’t shine, and turn the sensitivity to max, you will always be able to find another compound. Then just add the “oh noes”… and, et voilà… out pops another paper, ready for alarming press-release.

  97. DavidCage says:

    UEA has a brilliant department of creative writing. Looks as if the climate scientists were the failures from there. Scenarios implausible and poorly presented as well as all the characters involved looking ludicrous.

  98. KNR says:

    Researchers from the University of East Anglia – oxymoron?

  99. It seems pretty clear to me from the contributions of jtf and others that the descending air in the polar vortices provides a means whereby the different ozone concentrations at upper levels are brought down to lower levels so as to affect ozone concentrations at those lower levels, especially above the poles.

    There is the means whereby the gradient of tropopause height can change between equator and poles because it is the amount of ozone present which creates the tropopause in the first place by creating a temperature inversion in the stratosphere.

    That, then, would be why solar variations affecting the ozone creation / destruction balance above 45km (apparently oppositely to the effect below 45km) can feed downward to alter the latitudinal positions of the climate zones and jets thereby altering global cloudiness which in turn affects the amount of solar energy able to enter the oceans to drive the climate system.

  100. Mike McMillan says:

    philincalifornia says: March 9, 2014 at 7:48 pm
    … Yep, right here:…

    Nice catch. Amazing what you find if you take the time to look.

  101. Alan Robertson says:

    They were too embarrassed to admit that they didn’t adequately study swamp gas for fear of the Swamp Thang.

  102. Rabe says:

    Are some patents running out, again?

  103. jauntycyclist says:

    we need to ban dihydrogen monoxide and start taxing anyone who uses it.

  104. Jimbo says:

    Here is the “send us more money” line.

    “Two of the gases are accumulating at a rate that is causing concern among researchers.”

    They don’t know the sources, it’s a mystery, but it looks like man’s pesticides. What a load of utter bollocks.

  105. Berényi Péter says:

    There is no proof mana is not emanating in large quantities from unidentified sources into the stratosphere and there is no telling what harm it may do there. However, a regular mana tax, payed by everyone below a certain income level, should resolve the issue swiftly.

  106. PiperPaul says:

    justthefactswuwt says:
    March 9, 2014 at 6:56 pm

    I am consistently amused by fear-mongering regarding various “holes”.

    Bar question: “So where are you from?”

    “A patch of fur about this big.”

  107. urederra says:

    Anne Ominous says:
    March 9, 2014 at 10:32 pm

    justthefactswuwt says:
    What is particularly interesting is that there is an “Ozone Hole”, within an “Ozone Hole”, within another “Ozone Hole”…

    Not really, and not really. That is: it’s not really interesting, because there’s not really a hole within a hole. It’s simply a gradient. It looks like discrete regions because of the intervals used to color it.

    Exactly.

    Properly speaking, it is never been a “hole”. Ozone concentration has never been zero. “scientists” have been calling a “hole” when the amount of ozone is lower than certain amount of Dobson units. But the rest of the population, politicians included, have understood that the ozone “hole” is a complete lack of ozone in a portion of the stratosphere.

    That is like saying that a 1 meter wide wall is a wall but if you find a thinner portion of the wall which is only 0.5 meters wide, then you call that portion a hole. That is not a hole, a hole is when there is no bricks at all.

    Or when you have a sheet of paper with a watermark and you say that the watermark is a hole.

    Quoting from nasa´s site ozonewatch: http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/

    The area of the ozone hole is determined from a map of total column ozone. It is calculated from the area on the Earth that is enclosed by a line with a constant value of 220 Dobson Units.

    So, if the amount of ozone is 300 dobson units then it is a layer. but if the amount of ozone is 200 dobson units then it is a hole.

    The term is totally misleading. And it is done so to scare people.

  108. Stephen Richards says:

    “Of the four species identified, CFC-113a seems the most worrying as there is a very small but growing emission source somewhere, maybe from agricultural insecticides. We should find it and take it out of production.”

    Let’s hope it’s his ass then he can take himself “out of production”.

  109. Kate Forney says:

    Uhh ooh. We had better reverse all industrialization immediately and go live in caves as hunter-gatherers.

  110. ROM says:

    Please do not give the University of East Anglia too much credit for being the producers of the worst science in the western world.
    We would like you to also consider the University of NSW when voting on this category.
    ____________________
    The only currency left for so much of what now is supposed to pass as a chimera called science is “Fear”.
    [ chimera= a thing that is hoped or wished for but in fact is illusory or impossible to achieve ]

    So much of what we see classified as science is now nothing more than another deliberately Fear inducing claim dressed up as some sort of claim to be science, a science that is specifically shaped to try and increase the levels of “Fear” amongst the public.

    It is a very bad omen and a very sad day indeed for the future of Science when Science can seemingly no longer rely on it’s hard earned past integrity, it’s curiosity, it’s honesty with itself , the hard earned public respect garnered by the real scientists of the past and it’s long established desire and goals to try and answer the questions that confront mankind in every field.

    Instead science has turned to a strategy of deliberately stimulating an emotion which is one of the most traumatic of all human emotions, that of “Fear”, to try and achieve it’s no longer humanity orientated goals but instead it’s new self aggrandizing and self indulgent goals of increasing it’s own power, influence and wealth regardless of the well being and at the expense of those whose taxes pay for that very so called “Science” .

    Increasingly today’s Science is seen to be deliberately using and promoting and exploiting to the utmost one of the most basic of human emotions, that of “Fear” to try and increase it’s influence, it’s wealth and it’s political power.
    In doing so it has sold it’s now sad and miserable shrunken soul for plate of an increasingly illusory and increasingly indigestible bowl of a contemptible porridge of dollar notes with no substance and of no perceivable benefit in the end but with a huge latent capacity to do almost untold damage and harm to both science and to mankind.

  111. Admad says:

    Holy cow, I’ve just discovered another source of Gullible Warming, it’s called Nonexistentium and I need $5m immediately to research it. Anyone?

  112. These people always need a new scam on the boil. After initial stunning successes with DDT, CFCs , Y2K and Global Warming, the complete fiasco of Y2K, the persistence of the (so-called) Ozone Hole and the degradation of the Global Warming Scam by continued failures in forecasts, it was time to launch a new Scam. This time the money is in banning 4 new chemicals and diverting agriculture into new genetically engineered products without much doubt. The fact that it emanates from UEA somewhat blunts its message as that place is now seen widely as Scam-Central.
    The DDT ban continues to impact on the health of millions of people without causing any real benefit. The impact of the CFC ban, Global Warming Alarmist Mania and restrictions continue to impact everyone’s lives negatively with no visible effect on the weather (climate). This new scam will have similar effects. These people are the visible surface of a vast world-wide criminal enterprise aimed at destroying human lives and welfare for private gain.

  113. ren says:

    Meanwhile, the GCR has increased.

  114. Stacey says:

    Researchers from the University of Everything Alarming are alarmed?

  115. cedarhill says:

    This is really bad — we’re into reruns. And not very popular ones at th\at

  116. Anne Ominous says: March 9, 2014 at 10:32 pm

    Not really, and not really. That is: it’s not really interesting, because there’s not really a hole within a hole. It’s simply a gradient. It looks like discrete regions because of the intervals used to color it.

    I know, it’s not really a “Hole” at all, hence the quotes, but it is really interesting, because it indicates that the likely cause is dynamical versus chemical processes.

  117. Gary Pearse says:

    Man oh man, we may have got into their emails too early. Imagine what a treasure trove of email malfeasance we would have had in the last several years. Of course now, since the UEA has banned emailing, we are going to be left in the dark on all this maneuvering. I can see the progression toward banning the UEA with this latest piece of junk.

  118. Gary Pearse says:

    justthefactswuwt says:
    March 10, 2014 at 4:33 am

    “but it is really interesting, because it indicates that the likely cause is dynamical versus chemical processes.”

    Can I pitch you with the dynamical process of all the gases except O2 being diamagnetic and thereby being repelled by a magnetic field, whereas O2 is comparatively strongly magnetic. You may have seen me putting this forward on a few occasions. In one of your posts above you mention there is also a Methane hole, nitrogen oxide hole and I’ve shown there is a CO 2 hole as well. I’m predicting there is a noble gas hole as well. On this subject, has anyone measured WHAT IS IN the ozone hole? I would say it is enriched in oxygen. Not only does a mag field push the diamagnetic molecules away, it pulls in O2 which further assists in displacing the others. Your polar winds and downdrafts would not just blow the Ozone away (and methane, nitrogen oxides) it would blow them all away. I know it is a low but I’d like to see the quantification of all the hole. This is what happens when we chisel an assumption in stone. It is not science to just say WHAT IS NOT THERE! From my thread on the recent “Claim: Would have happened to…” these links:

    Gary Pearse says:
    March 8, 2014 at 5:16 pm

    1) There is an observed CO2 hole at the poles

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82142

    and: Scripps measured the same thing since 1957 only they didn’t know what they had!!
    http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_and_south_pole/mauna_loa_and_south_pole.html lower CO2 at the south pole

    2) The piece de resistance! Oxygen is attracted to the poles. This link is a very dramatic one with oxygen blasted out into outer space by the solar wind and is captured by the earth’s magnetic field and returns to earth at the poles!! “MAGE/HENA observes the oxygen ions, expelled from the Earth’s atmosphere by the solar wind, return to the polar regions via the magnetic field.”

    http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002400/a002445/

  119. Gary Pearse says:

    Also, look at Nasa’s Antarctic O-hole. There is a collar of concentrated O3 around the O-hole which is up to over 440 dobson units – am I the only one to have noticed this? As in your N-Pole example, the ozone isn’t depleted it is pushed away like the roll neck of turtleneck sweater. Why not calculate the total volume of Ozone and see if all these features balance or there is a loss. Science and logic have to be put back into the picture. Here is the image from Nasa

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/ozone.php

    Yeah, I think wind is a factor but mag is the fractionator.

  120. GeeJam says:

    Latest: UEA identify the four ozone threatening gases:

    1. Itride-Lyinabowtit (I3LiBTT)
    2. Silicon-thataint-gonawerk (SiO2TGWK)
    3. Iso-noimrite (C5H8NIMRT)
    4. Arsinetworeminegan (AsH3WA)

  121. Tom J says:

    UEA:
    Honest, we really are still relevant!

    sarc

  122. Gail Combs says:

    Time to DEFUND science and Universities.

    Why should we pay for propaganda mills when our debt is sky rocketing?

  123. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    KNR says:

    >Researchers from the University of East Anglia – oxymoron?

    It is interesting to see what pops out of UEA when they decide to go ‘sciencing’. From the analyses above it is pretty clear that there are natural sources of all 4 of these chemicals as well as clear evidence that they are neither new nor significant in concentration.

    Further, it is abundantly clear that the decrease in ozone is caused by low-ozone air descending at both poles. That means the Montreal Protocol was pointless save as an exercise in creating unified action against a common threat. Perhaps it is time to give prominence to the common threat posed by shoddy, speculative Hollywood Science (HS). HS is the kind of brainless crap in movies like “The Day After Tomorrow” or the outstretched finger-grasping by the ‘hero’ at the end of his tether in “Gravity”.

    Findings things we already know are there is hardly publication-worthy stuff. Calling something ‘new’ when it is listed in public documents shows ignorance.

    Is anyone, anyone, surprised that alarmist Hollywood Science wrapped in speculative ignorance has, once again, emerged, peer-reviewed, from the University of East Anglia?

  124. DD More says:

    Let’s look at the cost comparison.
    World wide increase the cost of refrigeration and now agricultural insecticides which we should find it and take it out of production.

    Versus

    Buy sunscreen and tell the under 5,000 residents / visitors to Antarctica to keep their shirts on in November (no sun anyway).

  125. Phil. says:

    Hoser says:
    March 9, 2014 at 10:32 pm
    O3 is not at the top of the atmosphere. When the polar air goes into super deep-freeze mode, it drops like a rock taking likely all but the highest stratosphere with it. This circulation is what the polar cell does, I’m suggesting the flow goes into high gear in winter. Thus, would we not expect the O3 level to fall naturally every winter at the poles regardless of hypothetical CFC effects? What am I missing?

    That the ozone level drops in spring and early summer, not winter! There is no UV there in winter so the photodissociative formation of the Cl atoms does not take place then, but starts to take place when the sunlight returns to the Antarctic stratosphere.

  126. Oscar Bajner says:

    Non Anglia, sed Angler – Just another fishy story from the super sleuths at Unbalievable Extroardinary Amaztatic.

    Let me suggest the following “sources” of the new gaz:
    1. Precisely where the latest spontaneous self immolating Tesla car is (was).
    2. Look for a large, sweaty Stoat, pounding a keyboard and swearing viciously.

  127. David Addams says:

    Was there really any need to read this after the words “East Anglia”?

  128. Keith Willshaw says:

    CFC-112 and CFC-112a, CFC-113 and HCFC-133a are hardly NEW issues. They were banned under the Montreal Protocol. CFC-113a seems to be a by product of CCF-14 synthesis and/or decomposition of R-13.

    see http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/ods/index.html

  129. Specter says:

    “KNR says:
    March 10, 2014 at 12:48 am
    Researchers from the University of East Anglia – oxymoron?”

    Can we just shorten it all to UEA=morons?

  130. Bart says:

    fhhaynie says:
    March 9, 2014 at 4:24 pm

    Asked the same question on earlier thread. Got this response from John M. What I’d like is some estimate of production which could be used to correlate with it.

  131. Leonard Jones says:

    I remember an episode of Family Ties (1982-1989) in which the younger daughter went on
    a wicked environmental crusade, getting rid of all the “evil” chemicals in the house. This
    included aerosol cans. But the government banned CFC propellants in 1978!

    The other major use of CFC’s is as a refrigerant, but all CFC’s removed from an A/C unit
    or refrigerator is treated like spent nuclear fuel rods! The stuff is sucked out of the system
    and pumped into a storage tank and eventually destroyed. Can someone please tell me
    how this can still be a problem?

  132. steverichards1984 says:

    I read in the supplementary information that they use multiple models!!!!…..

    A state of the art model of trace gas transport in firn has been used in this study 16; compared with other similar models in 8). Such models need as input diffusion coefficient ratios in air
    of the target species with respect to CO2. The values used calculated from critical
    temperature and volume data are 203.83 for CFC-112 and CFC-112a, 187.38 for
    CFC-113a and 118.49 for HCFC-133a, as detailed in the supplement of 8. Forward
    firn models such as those inter-compared in 8 allow calculating concentrations in firn
    from a known atmospheric history. Reconstructing atmospheric concentration
    histories from depth – concentration profiles in firn requires to use inverse modelling
    techniques. This inverse problem has multiple solutions S3. A robustness oriented
    method for choosing the optimal solution, adapted to the scarcity of firn data (16 to 19
    depth levels in this study), has been recently developed 21.
    The scarcity of
    measurements is handled based on the mathematical development for robust solving
    of inverse problems from S4. The reconstructed scenarios, together with their match of
    the firn data are shown on Figures S11 and S12.

  133. Khwarizmi says:

    JustTheFacts
    CFCs do not appear offer a plausible explanation for Northern “Ozone Hole”, i.e.
    per NASA:

    http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/miniholes_NH.html

    In a mini-hole,
    [i] ozone is rearranged by the weather systems
    [ii] and the ozone returns to its initial levels after the these weather

    systems pass.”

    Apart from scale, how is that any different to the southern maxi-hole?
    Given that southern depletion also appears to be nothing more than a temporary, cyclical,

    seasonal rearrangement of ozone concentration, why does the Antarctic phenomena require

    CFCs/chlorine & stratospheric ice crystals?

    via Gary Pearse (previous thread), NASA again (annotated):

    The ozone hole grows throughout the early spring
    [i] until temperatures warm
    [ii] and the polar vortex weakens,
    [iii] ending the isolation of the air in the polar vortex.
    [iv] As [ozone-enriched] air from the surrounding latitudes mixes into the

    [ozone-depleted] polar region, the ozone-destroying forms of chlorine disperse [or

    become redundant].
    The ozone layer stabilizes until the following spring.
    http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/hole_SH.html

    With an isolated & poorly insolated polar vortex, you don’t need any chlorine.

  134. Khwarizmi says: March 10, 2014 at 6:01 pm

    “Apart from scale, how is that any different to the southern maxi-hole?
    Given that southern depletion also appears to be nothing more than a temporary, cyclical”

    The Northern Ozone “Hole” wasn’t part of the CFC narrative and doesn’t fit well within it, thus it needs a different explanation. Otherwise they seem the same to me.

    “With an isolated & poorly insolated polar vortex, you don’t need any chlorine.”

    Yep, if there are a physical processes that adequately explain the existence of Ozone “Holes”, there is no need for extraneous CFC based chemical processes

    My question is, how big would the Ozone “Hole” be if CFCs didn’t exist? The evidence indicates that it would be the same size, as Ozone “Hole” size appears to depend on how large and strong the Polar Vortex is, and how deep it penetrates into the atmosphere.

  135. Mervyn says:

    The IPCC and its alarmist faithful followers have been crying wolf for over two decades over dangerous AGW. In the process, they have brought science into disrepute. Consequently, even if these new gases were indeed a serious concern, none of us will give a damn!

  136. Phil. says:

    fhhaynie says:
    March 9, 2014 at 4:24 pm
    Has anybody ever measured the amount of CFCs or chlorine actually in the “ozone hole” over time?

    justthefactswuwt says:
    March 10, 2014 at 6:51 pm
    My question is, how big would the Ozone “Hole” be if CFCs didn’t exist? The evidence indicates that it would be the same size, as Ozone “Hole” size appears to depend on how large and strong the Polar Vortex is, and how deep it penetrates into the atmosphere.

    I disagree, the data indicates that the Dobson number would be about 325 under the hole in the spring (October) rather than less than 100 at the minimum.

  137. Khwarizmi says:

    phil,
    please try to explain why the highest concentrations of ozone on Earth are always found around the perimeter of the depletion region.
    Look at the accretion disc instead of the hole, and try to explain it for us all.
    Good luck!

  138. Phil. says: March 11, 2014 at 10:21 am

    I disagree, the data indicates that the Dobson number would be about 325 under the hole in the spring (October) rather than less than 100 at the minimum.

    No, even if this data was accurate, this would only effect the concentration of ozone within the Ozone “Hole”, the Ozone Hole itself would be same size:

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source

    It terms of the data you present;

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source

    it is suspect. Firstly, there is no identification of the source of the data on the graph, or on the page where it can be found:

    http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/part1.html

    It appears to misleading version of this graph, which at least shows the source and variability of the associated measurements:

    ” NASA – Earth Observatory – Click the pic to view at source

    Secondly, in “1956, the British Antarctic Survey set up the Halley Bay Observatory on Antarctica in preparation for the International Geophysical Year (IGY) of 1957. In that year, ozone measurements using a Dobson Spectrophotometer began.”

    Halley Bay, is, unsurprisingly, on the coast of Antarctica;

    “Center for Atmospheric and Space Sciences, Logan, Utah – Click the pic to view at source

    and thus is not well situated to measure a phenomenon that is usually centered over the South Pole. Halley Bay represented a single measurement location on a continent that is 5.405 million sq miles (14 million km²), and Ozone “Hole” that exceeds 18 million km² at its maximum. Furthermore the quality of the data is suspect, i.e.:

    “The network included a station in Halley Bay, Antarctica, which is famous for the discovery of the ozone hole in the 1980s (Farman et al. 1985). At the same time observation techniques and calibration were improved and the procedures were standardised. This allows re-evaluating many total ozone series back to 1957 based on meta-information and calibration information.”

    http://meteo.edu.vn/DATA/Books/Climate%20Variability%20and%20Extremes%20during%20the%20Past%20100%20Years/8.%20Total%20Ozone%20Observations%20During%20the%20Past%2080%20Years.pdf

    Third, the TOMS Instrument satellite ozone data is also suspect, i.e.:

    “Nimbus-7 TOMS Instrument and Satellite Information

    The TOMS program began with the launch of TOMS Flight Model #1 on the Nimbus-7 spacecraft on October 24, 1978. Valid measurements started in November of that same year and the instrument continued to return data long after all other on-board experiments had failed. The TOMS instrument fell silent in May 1993. The software to derive useful information from the data returned by Nimbus 7 TOMS is the basis for the algorithm used to analyze all TOMS data and has gone through a lengthy evolutionary process bring it to the current version. The Version 7 processed data include a revised instrument calibration based on analysis of the entire 14.5 year data record (including a correction for a 0.2 nm wavelength error which caused a 3% absolute offset relative to Dobson) as well as an improved algorithm.

    Algorithmic Improvements include:
    use of wavelength “triplets” that correct for errors linear in wavelength
    improved ISCCP cloud height climatology, higher resolution terrain height maps
    use of improved profile shape selection to improve total ozone at very large solar zenith angles
    use of a more accurate model for partially-clouded scenes improved radiative transfer calculations for table generation”

    http://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/n7toms/n7sat.html

    NASA Ozone Data Source:
    The data for 1979–1993 are from the TOMS instrument on the NASA/NOAA Nimbus-7 satellite.
    The data for this 1993–1994 are from the TOMS instrument on the Soviet-built Meteor-3 satellite.
    The data for 1996–October 2004 are from the NASA Earth Probe TOMS satellite.
    The data for November 2004–2011 are from the OMI instrument (KNMI / NASA) onboard the Aura satellite. They are the OMTO3 that have been processed in a manner similar to the TOMS data from earlier years.

    The ozone minimum is determined only from data actually contained in the processed satellite data. To calculate the ozone hole area and mass deficit, we fill in missing areas (bad orbits and polar night) from an atmospheric model. MERRA is a NASA reanalysis for the satellite era using a major new version of the Goddard Earth Observing System Data Assimilation System Version 5 (GEOS-5). The Project focuses on historical analyses of the hydrological cycle on a broad range of weather and climate time scales and places the NASA EOS suite of observations in a climate context. Since these data are from a reanalysis, they are not up-to-date. So, we supplement with the GEOS-5 FP data that are also produced by the GEOS-5 model in near real time.”

    http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/ozone_1990_MERRA_SH.html

    “08-15-2007
    Corrected Earth Probe Data
    correction basis: NOAA-16 SBUV/2 ozone
    time period: August 1996 – December 13, 2005
    data products corrected: ozone, reflectivity

    By mid-2000, the Earth Probe (EP) TOMS instrument degradation became so large that standard correction procedures could no longer produce accurate ozone. The problem is believed to be inhomogeneous degradation of the scanner mirror on TOMS that results in a calibration error that is different at different latitudes. We have warned users that the production EP ozone data should NOT be used for trend analysis.

    We have now applied a correction to the Earth Probe data that stabilizes the EP ozone record. This empirical correction is based on the NOAA-16 SBUV/2 ozone record, with a solar zenith angle dependence that accounts for much of the spurious latitude dependence observed in the current data. Only the ozone and reflectivity records have been corrected. The aerosol index data and SO2 records are more complex and have not been corrected by this empirical correction.

    Comparison with the ground network shows that the resulting ozone is stable within ± 1% over the 1996-2005 period. In the period 2002-2005 in the northern hemisphere, there is a residual seasonally-dependent error of ± 1.5% magnitude. These data should still NOT be used as a source for trend analysis since they are no longer independent.”

    http://ozoneaq.gsfc.nasa.gov/news.md

    So “long after all other on-board experiments had failed” it produced suspect data, which was then put through “a lengthly evolutionary process” that includes “revised instrument calibration”, “including a correction for a 0.2 nm wavelength error”, “as well as an improved algorithm” that included “a more accurate model for partially-clouded scenes” and “to calculate ozone hole area and mass deficit” they “fill in missing areas (bad orbits and polar night) from an atmospheric model.”

    It seems that the TOMS instrument has a long history of issues and required “corrections”, thus the resultant Ozone “hole” data should be considered suspect.

    Lastly, here is an interesting paper from 1986 that offers a sober assessment of the source of the Ozone “Hole”:

    “Data from the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) on the Nimbus 7 satellite are compared with Dobson spectrophotometer measurements from the Antarctic, where a large decrease in October total ozone has been observed over the last decade. It has been hypothesized that the decrease is caused by local photochemical effects of man-made chlorofluorocarbons. The TOMS data, which start in 1978, agree well with the Dobson data, confirming the low values of recent years. However, during the southern hemisphere spring total ozone in the Antarctic is strongly affected by transport associated with the breakdown of the stratospheric vortex. The strength and timing of the vortex breakdown are highly variable and can have a large effect on monthly-mean total ozone values. The TOMS data suggest that variations in the stratosphefic circulation have contributed to the long-term decrease. Large variations in total ozone are not confined to the Antarctic. Zonal-mean ozone values have also decreased in the northern hemisphere spring during the TOMS observing period.”

    “The TOMS measurements largely corroborate the exceptionally low October Dobson measurements made at HB for the years 1979-1982. The observed decrease in total ozone in the Antarctic during the last decade may have been caused by either photochemical or dynamical processes. Farman et al. [1985] and others have hypothesized that the changes are the result only of local photochemical effects. However, it is clear from the TOMS data that ozone transport and especially the timing of the vortex breakdown can have a large influence on the monthly mean total ozone, especially for October and November, when the vortex breakdown usually takes place. When the vortex breakdown occurs early (late) the October mean ozone is high (low). Figure 1 in Farman et al. also suggests that extreme high ozone values are associated with early breakdowns, while extreme low values are found in years with weak and late breakdowns. The vortex breakdowns of 1980-1982 were weaker and later than for 1978 and 1979. Thus, it is possible that the observed long-term ozone changes are in part the result of changes in planetary wave activity and the stratospheric circulation. Ozone fluctuations from interannual variability of the vortex breakdown may have been superimposed on trends due to chemical processes. A third possibility is that chemical- induced ozone changes have changed radiative heating rates sufficiently to alter the zonal-mean circulation and the propagation of planetary waves into the lower stratosphere, delaying the vortex breakdown. Continued monitoring from the ground and from satellites will be necessary to determine whether the low total ozone values in the Antarctic persist. A return of ozone values to early levels would contradict the chemical hypothesis.

    Continued low ozone values, especially if they persist in both hemispheres, will support chemical depletion mechanisms and make dynamical explanations less likely. While the TOMS instrument continues to operate, it will provide valuable ozone trend data and information on the dynamics of the vortex breakdown.”

    http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/213/GL013i012p01193.pdf

    No persistent Ozone “Hole” has formed in the Northern Hemisphere, rather the current Northern Ozone “Hole” appears to be the result of dynamical forces of the Northern Polar Vortex, thus the Southern Hemisphere Ozone “Hole” likely caused by the same dynamical forces.

  139. Khwarizmi says: March 11, 2014 at 1:40 pm

    please try to explain why the highest concentrations of ozone on Earth are always found around the perimeter of the depletion region.
    Look at the accretion disc instead of the hole, and try to explain it for us all.
    Good luck!

    Sure, the dynamical forces of the Polar Vortex displace the ozone, resulting in an Ozone “Surplus” around the Polar Vortex and associated Ozone “Hole”:

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center

  140. Phil. says:

    justthefactswuwt says:
    March 11, 2014 at 7:06 pm
    Phil. says: March 11, 2014 at 10:21 am

    “I disagree, the data indicates that the Dobson number would be about 325 under the hole in the spring (October) rather than less than 100 at the minimum.”

    No, even if this data was accurate, this would only effect the concentration of ozone within the Ozone “Hole”, the Ozone Hole itself would be same size:

    No the hole is the result of the concentration distribution.

    It terms of the data you present;

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source

    it is suspect. Firstly, there is no identification of the source of the data on the graph, or on the page where it can be found:

    http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/part1.html

    It is the Hally Bay data shown on the NOAA site as indicated on the graph legend. You can read more about it here:

    http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/part2.html

    It appears to misleading version of this graph, which at least shows the source and variability of the associated measurements:
    As opposed to the British Antarctic Survey data which I showed which shows the confidence intervals for the annual october data. And you have it backwards the Hally Bay data came first!

    Halley Bay, is, unsurprisingly, on the coast of Antarctica;
    and thus is not well situated to measure a phenomenon that is usually centered over the South Pole. Halley Bay represented a single measurement location on a continent that is 5.405 million sq miles (14 million km²), and Ozone “Hole” that exceeds 18 million km² at its maximum.

    Actually it’s perfectly situated and was the location from where the existence of the ‘hole’ was first detected by Farmar et al.!
    Note the position of Hally Bay wrt the ‘hole’ in this image.

    Furthermore the quality of the data is suspect, i.e.:

    Not suspect at all, except for someone with a bias such as yourself.

    No persistent Ozone “Hole” has formed in the Northern Hemisphere, rather the current Northern Ozone “Hole” appears to be the result of dynamical forces of the Northern Polar Vortex, thus the Southern Hemisphere Ozone “Hole” likely caused by the same dynamical forces.

    That’s because the destruction of ozone is enhanced by some heterogeneous kinetics involving ice crystals (with nitric acid) in polar stratospheric clouds which need low temperatures for their formation (below -78ºC), these temperatures (and clouds) are encountered much more commonly over the Antarctic than the Arctic which is why such holes are infrequently encountered in the NH. These crystals accumulate chlorine in the form of ClONO2 during the winter, during the spring the sunlight melts the crystals thereby releasing a considerable amount of ClO and Cl at the same time and place as the UV arrives causing considerable O3 depletion.

  141. Phil. says:

    Khwarizmi says:
    March 11, 2014 at 1:40 pm
    phil,
    please try to explain why the highest concentrations of ozone on Earth are always found around the perimeter of the depletion region.
    Look at the accretion disc instead of the hole, and try to explain it for us all.
    Good luck!

    No luck needed, it’s the result of Brewer-Dobson circulation. The air from the tropics rises and travels poleward and as it rises through the lower stratosphere ozone accumulates due to photolysis. Once it enters the region of high Cl and ClO then depletion begins.

  142. Phil. says: March 12, 2014 at 10:57 am

    No the hole is the result of the concentration distribution.

    No, the “hole” is the result of the dynamical forces of the polar vortex, including the naturally occurring low pressure area within the Polar Vortex;

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center

    and because;

    in the center of the Antarctic vortex. Air from very high altitudes descends vertically through the center of the vortex, moving air to lower altitudes over several months.”

    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/HALOE-Ozone.html

    Air towards the top of the stratosphere and bottom of the mesosphere has lower concentrations of ozone;

    NOAA – National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) – Click the pic to view at source

    As such, when this “air from very high altitudes descends vertically through the center of the vortex” it displaces the air below it, decreasing the concentration of ozone within the Polar Vortex. The combination of the low pressure area formed by the centrifugal force of the Polar Vortex and the air from very high altitudes with lower concentrations of ozone that descends through the center of the vortex, creates the “Ozone Hole”:

    NASA – Goddard Space Flight Center – Arctic Ozone Watch – Click the pic to view at source

    NASA – Goddard Space Flight Center – Arctic Ozone Watch – Click the pic to view at source

    As opposed to the British Antarctic Survey data which I showed which shows the confidence intervals for the annual october data. And you have it backwards the Hally Bay data came first!

    That’s funny, they have the same confidence intervals for the Dobson Spectrophotometer data in 1956 as for the TOMS data in 1995. Perhaps if they increase those intervals by an order of magnitude that graph would be more accurate….

    Actually it’s perfectly situated and was the location from where the existence of the ‘hole’ was first detected by Farmar et al.!

    Perfectly situated would be the center of Antarctica, i.e.:

    “The ozone hole is in the center of a spiraling mass of air over the Antarctic that is called the polar vortex. The vortex is not stationary and sometimes moves as far north as the southern half of South America, taking the ozone hole with it.”

    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/HALOE-Ozone.html

    If Polar Vortex area is smaller, or breakup occurs earlier, there is no Ozone “Hole” above Halley to measure in October.

    Not suspect at all, except for someone with a bias such as yourself.

    Yes, a bias towards the facts. Apparently foreign to the climate science community these days…

    That’s because the destruction of ozone is enhanced by some heterogeneous kinetics involving ice crystals (with nitric acid) in polar stratospheric clouds which need low temperatures for their formation (below -78ºC), these temperatures (and clouds) are encountered much more commonly over the Antarctic than the Arctic which is why such holes are infrequently encountered in the NH. These crystals accumulate chlorine in the form of ClONO2 during the winter, during the spring the sunlight melts the crystals thereby releasing a considerable amount of ClO and Cl at the same time and place as the UV arrives causing considerable O3 depletion.

    Or because:
    “The vortex is most powerful in the hemisphere’s winter, when the temperature gradient is steepest, and diminishes or can disappear in the summer. The Antarctic polar vortex is more pronounced and persistent than the Arctic one; this is because the distribution of land masses at high latitudes in the northern hemisphere gives rise to Rossby waves which contribute to the breakdown of the vortex, whereas in the southern hemisphere the vortex remains less disturbed.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex

    We’ll let Occam and the readers decide between those two options…

  143. Phil. says:

    justthefactswuwt says:
    March 12, 2014 at 10:04 pm
    Phil. says: March 12, 2014 at 10:57 am

    “No the hole is the result of the concentration distribution.”

    No, the “hole” is the result of the dynamical forces of the polar vortex, including the naturally occurring low pressure area within the Polar Vortex;

    The ‘hole’ is the result of ozone concentration regardless of the dynamical situation without the chemical depletion there would be no ‘hole’!

    and because;

    “in the center of the Antarctic vortex. Air from very high altitudes descends vertically through the center of the vortex, moving air to lower altitudes over several months.”

    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/HALOE-Ozone.html

    Air towards the top of the stratosphere and bottom of the mesosphere has lower concentrations of ozone;

    The graph you showed applies to the atmosphere in general where the stratosphere is ‘stratified’, but does not apply over the Antarctic when the hole exists. Here’s some real data from that location:

    As such, when this “air from very high altitudes descends vertically through the center of the vortex”
    This quote is correct, however your assertion which follow is wrong!

    it displaces the air below it, decreasing the concentration of ozone within the Polar Vortex.
    Clearly the actual data shows that the ozone concentration above the ‘hole’ is actually higher than the ozone concentration at the lower altitudes. As that relatively ozone rich air falls below ~20km it encounters the Cl and ClO and the chemical kinetics takes over and that ozone is destroyed.

    The combination of the low pressure area formed by the centrifugal force of the Polar Vortex and the air from very high altitudes with lower concentrations of ozone that descends through the center of the vortex, creates the “Ozone Hole”:

    Clearly not!

    “As opposed to the British Antarctic Survey data which I showed which shows the confidence intervals for the annual october data. And you have it backwards the Hally Bay data came first”!

    That’s funny, they have the same confidence intervals for the Dobson Spectrophotometer data in 1956 as for the TOMS data in 1995. Perhaps if they increase those intervals by an order of magnitude that graph would more accurate….,

    Total rubbish, you have no basis for that assertion, the BAS data was made using an instrument on the ground which is calibrated in situ and which still exists, what the TOMS instruments report has no bearing on the original BAS data.

    “Actually it’s perfectly situated and was the location from where the existence of the ‘hole’ was first detected by Farmar et al.!”

    Perfectly situated would be the center of Antarctica, i.e.:

    As shown by the images Hally Bay is close to the center of the ‘hole’, in the image you show above it’s approximately equidistant with the S Pole.
    The HALOE site which you quoted mostly concentrates on the destruction of ozone by chemical means, for example:
    “Ozone Destruction
    Ozone in the stratosphere is destroyed when it combines with chlorine, forming oxygen and chlorine monoxide. A single chlorine molecule can destroy 100,000 ozone molecules in its lifetime.”

    And: “HALOE’s measurements have settled a crucial scientific issue by confirming that CFCs are responsible for the elevated chlorine levels in the stratosphere that lead to ozone loss.”
    “HALOE is the first instrument that has been able to confirm the influence of human activities on the amount of ozone-destroying chlorine in the stratosphere.”
    Apparently you ignored the whole site except the last paragraph, did you hope that no-one would read it?

  144. Phil. says: March 13, 2014 at 8:11 am

    The ‘hole’ is the result of ozone concentration regardless of the dynamical situation without the chemical depletion there would be no ‘hole’!

    No, I have clearly demonstrated that there would be a “hole” without “chemical depletion”, hence why there is also “a water vapor hole, a nitrogen oxide hole”;

    http://books.google.com/books?id=B93SSQrcAh4C&lpg=PA283&ots=d0-uBRjmyI&dq=%22water%20vapor%20hole%22%20polar%20vortex&pg=PA283#v=onepage&q=%22water%20vapor%20hole%22%20polar%20vortex&f=false

    and “measurements of low methane concentrations in the vortex”.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/93GL01104/abstract

    What do you think causes the water vapor, nitrogen oxide and methane “holes”?

    The graph you showed applies to the atmosphere in general where the stratosphere is ‘stratified’, but does not apply over the Antarctic when the hole exists. Here’s some real data from that location:

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/sp_profile.gif

    NOAA – National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) – Click the pic to view at source

    “The polar vortex extends from the tropopause (the dividing line between the stratosphere and troposphere) through the stratosphere and into the mesosphere (above 50 km). Low values of ozone and cold temperatures are associated with the air inside the vortex.” NASA

    Your graph demonstrates my point quite well, thank you.

    Clearly the actual data shows that the ozone concentration above the ‘hole’ is actually higher than the ozone concentration at the lower altitudes. As that relatively ozone rich air falls below ~20km it encounters the Cl and ClO and the chemical kinetics takes over and that ozone is destroyed.

    What are you looking at? Both of the graphs show that there is clearly less Ozone up at 30, 40 and 50 km, which is the “air from very high altitudes” that “descends vertically through the center of the vortex, moving air to lower altitudes over several months.”

    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/HALOE-Ozone.html

    Total rubbish, you have no basis for that assertion, the BAS data was made using an instrument on the ground which is calibrated in situ and which still exists, what the TOMS instruments report has no bearing on the original BAS data.

    I cited 5 sources supporting my assertion that the quality of the historical Ozone data is suspect, here;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/09/mysterious-new-man-made-gases-pose-threat-to-ozone-layer/#comment-1588123

    and you cited “rubbish”. I think I won that one…

    As shown by the images Hally Bay is close to the center of the ‘hole’, in the image you show above it’s approximately equidistant with the S Pole.

    Yes, in that image, but in other images it’s not:

    NASA GSFC, USA; image prepared by CSIRO Atmospheric Research – Click the pic to view at source

    The reason for the increased prevalence and persistence of the Southern Ozone “Hole” in October is well documented, i.e. “several studies (including Waugh and Randel 1999; Waugh et al. 1999; Karpetchko et al. 2005; Black and McDaniel 2007) have indicated a trend over the 1980s and 1990s toward a later vortex breakdown.”

    http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/waugh+polvani-PlumbFestVolume-2010.pdf

    The HALOE site which you quoted mostly concentrates on the destruction of ozone by chemical means, for example:

    Yes, sad that NASA was already that offtrack back in 1996. Now they’re pushing silly Warmist propaganda, e.g.:

    http://climatekids.nasa.gov/

    Apparently you ignored the whole site except the last paragraph

    No, that paragraph is in the middle. I read it all and determined some of it to be factually inaccurate.

    did you hope that no-one would read it?

    Yes, you got me, that’s why I posted a link to it, to trick people into not reading it…

  145. Phil. says:

    justthefactswuwt says:
    March 13, 2014 at 9:23 pm
    Phil. says: March 13, 2014 at 8:11 am

    Your graph demonstrates my point quite well, thank you.

    Only if you’re completely unable to read a graph!

    “Clearly the actual data shows that the ozone concentration above the ‘hole’ is actually higher than the ozone concentration at the lower altitudes. As that relatively ozone rich air falls below ~20km it encounters the Cl and ClO and the chemical kinetics takes over and that ozone is destroyed.”

    What are you looking at? Both of the graphs show that there is clearly less Ozone up at 30, 40 and 50 km, which is the “air from very high altitudes” that “descends vertically through the center of the vortex, moving air to lower altitudes over several months.”

    Clearly I have to explain the graph you’re looking at since you’re either incapable of reading it or are so consumed by your bias that you don’t want to see it!
    At about 31km the pO3 is ~3mPa, as the air descends to ~23km the pO3 increases to ~6mPa due to the photolysis reactions. As it descends over the next couple of km the pO3 rapidly drops to less than 1mPa, so clearly there is more O3 at 30km than at 20km not less as you incorrectly assert above. Your mechanism is contradicted by the data and the chemical kinetic mechanism is supported by the data as shown. Note that this decrease occurs in October but not in July, when the pO3 continues to increase, peaking at ~16mPa where the temperature and pressure has increased and the chemical mechanism (Chapman etc) is expected to deplete O3. Below ~13km and above ~23km there’s no difference between Oct and July values which your mechanism is unable to explain!

    I cited 5 sources supporting my assertion that the quality of the historical Ozone data is suspect, here;

    You cited no such data regarding the BAS data which I cited earlier.

    “As shown by the images Hally Bay is close to the center of the ‘hole’, in the image you show above it’s approximately equidistant with the S Pole.”

    Yes, in that image, but in other images it’s not:

    It’s under the ‘hole’ in all those images you showed since 1984 (when the ‘hole’ was still small) the S Pole was at the edge in Oct 84 by the way.

  146. Phil. says: March 14, 2014 at 7:28 am

    I asked you “What do you think causes the water vapor, nitrogen oxide and methane “holes”?” and you did not respond. Can we take this as an admission that you cannot answer this question without contradicting your claim that “regardless of the dynamical situation without the chemical depletion there would be no ‘hole’!”?

    Only if you’re completely unable to read a graph!

    “Clearly the actual data shows that the ozone concentration above the ‘hole’ is actually higher than the ozone concentration at the lower altitudes.

    We seem to be at an impasse here. When there is not a Polar Vortex in the Southern Hemisphere, does ozone concentration increase or decrease between 25 km and 50 km?

    As that relatively ozone rich air falls below ~20km it encounters the Cl and ClO and the chemical kinetics takes over and that ozone is destroyed.

    Really?… Then why in the Northern Hemisphere is there currently an Ozone “Hole” at 2 hPa/mb – ~42 km;

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center

    and a bigger one at 5 hPa/mb ~ 35 km;

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center

    and an even bigger one at 10 hPa/mb ~ 31 km;

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center

    a pronounced one, surrounded by a large Ozone “Surplus”, at 30 hPa/mb ~ 23 km;

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center

    and then it shrinks significantly at 50-hPa/mb ~ 20 km;

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center

    before it disappears at 70-hPa/mb ~ 18 km;

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source

    and there’s nothing at 100-hPa/mb ~ 15 km:

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source

    And lest you think at this is only the case in Northern Hemisphere, and in the Southern Hemisphere magically, “ozone rich air falls below ~20km it encounters the Cl and ClO and the chemical kinetics takes over and that ozone is destroyed”, let us also look at the Southern Ozone “Hole”:

    On October 15, 2013, in the Southern Hemisphere, the Ozone “Hole” started even higher at .5 hPa/mb – ~55 km;

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center

    grews at 1 hPa/mb – ~50 km;

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center

    and was quite pronounced at 2 hPa/mb – ~42 km;

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center

    weakened at 5 hPa/mb ~ 35 km;

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center

    split into two lobes at 10 hPa/mb ~ 31 km;

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center

    and reinvigorated, with a large Ozone “Surplus” at 30 hPa/mb ~ 23 km;:

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center

    Unfortunately, NOAA’s Ozone Mixing Archives;

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/sbuv2to/archive/sh/

    don’t go below 30 hPa/mb ~ 23 km, so we can’t see the magical “encounters” “below ~20km” where the “Cl and ClO and the chemical kinetics takes over and that ozone is destroyed”. However, it is apparent that the air within the Polar Vortex “above ~20km” has low concentrations of ozone, thus your assertion “that relatively ozone rich air falls below ~20km” is falsified. Can you admit that you are wrong?

    Clearly I have to explain the graph you’re looking at since you’re either incapable of reading it or are so consumed by your bias that you don’t want to see it!

    At about 31km the pO3 is ~3mPa, as the air descends to ~23km the pO3 increases to ~6mPa due to the photolysis reactions. As it descends over the next couple of km the pO3 rapidly drops to less than 1mPa, so clearly there is more O3 at 30km than at 20km not less as you incorrectly assert above.

    Now you are just playing games because you know you’re losing. There is clearly less O2 with altitude. I never asserted that “is more O3 at 30km than at 20km”, I wrote that “that there is clearly less Ozone up at 30, 40 and 50 km”. You can play with the starting point, ~23 km, 20 km or ~ 18 km depending on day, season, vortex size, strength and penetration, but that doesn’t change the fact that there is ” is clearly less Ozone in the air up at 30, 40 and 50 km which “descends vertically through the center of the vortex, moving air to lower altitudes over several months.”
    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/HALOE-Ozone.html“.

    Furthermore, Ozone-Sonde don’t measure absolute Ozone concentration rather;

    “ozone-sonde observations often use the ‘partial pressure’ of ozone as their unit. This is the pressure that the ozone molecules would exert if all the other molecules in the air were removed. If you look at Figure 5 the O3 is presented as a pressure in milli-Pascals (mPa). You can convert these numbers to a mixing ratio by dividing by the pressure of the air at that point. So for example at the surface the O3 partial pressure is 5 mPa. The pressure at that point is ~1013 hPa so the mixing ratio of O3 is 5×10-3 /1013×102 = 5×10-8 molecules of O3 per molecule of air or 50 parts per billion.

    Sometimes we are interested in the total amount of O3 above our heads. In this case we use Dobson units. If you image you took all the O3 from above your head and brought it down to the surface at 0ºC and a pressure of 1013 hPa how thick would it be? For historical reasons this thickness is given in units of 0.01 mm. So if you brought all the O3 above your head down to the ground at 0ºC and it formed a column 3 mm thick the O3 column would be 300 DU”

    http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sws05ajc/teaching/ozonesonde.pdf

    Since atmospheric pressure decreases rapidly with height;

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center

    ozone-sonde observations using “‘partial pressure’ of ozone as their unit” can be misleading to the uninformed.

    For those interested, this site offers an archive of Ozone South Pole, Antarctica Vertical Profiles;

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=SPO&program=ozwv&type=vp

    including the one Phil cited.

    Your mechanism is contradicted by the data and the chemical kinetic mechanism is supported by the data as shown. Note that this decrease occurs in October but not in July, when the pO3 continues to increase, peaking at ~16mPa where the temperature and pressure has increased and the chemical mechanism (Chapman etc) is expected to deplete O3. Below ~13km and above ~23km there’s no difference between Oct and July values which your mechanism is unable to explain!

    No it’s not, there is a simple dynamical mechanism versus the convoluted chemical mechanism that you assert, i.e. the Polar Vortex is still developing and penetrating through the atmosphere in July;

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center

    on August 1st, 2013, their first reading, the Polar Vortex has barely reached 30 hPa/mb ~ 23 km;

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center

    whereas by October 15th, 2013 it has penetrated much deeper, thus the lower Ozone Mixing ratio at 30 hPa/mb ~ 23 km:

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center

    A simple dynamical mechanism explains the observations, whereas the convoluted chemical mechanism you assert is falsified by the observations that the Ozone Hole extends well above the supposed “~20km” where you claim “relatively ozone rich air falls below” and “encounters the Cl and ClO and the chemical kinetics takes over and that ozone is destroyed.”

    You cited no such data regarding the BAS data which I cited earlier.

    I cited that it is a single location on the coast and that:
    “in the 1980s” “observation techniques and calibration were improved and the procedures were standardised. This allows re-evaluating many total ozone series back to 1957 based on meta-information and calibration information.”

    http://meteo.edu.vn/DATA/Books/Climate%20Variability%20and%20Extremes%20during%20the%20Past%20100%20Years/8.%20Total%20Ozone%20Observations%20During%20the%20Past%2080%20Years.pdf

    “Re-evaluating many total ozone series back to 1957 based on meta-information and calibration information” is the very definition of suspect data…

    It’s under the ‘hole’ in all those images you showed since 1984 (when the ‘hole’ was still small) the S Pole was at the edge in Oct 84 by the way.

    It is still measure the outer edge of a swirling polar vortex. Clearly the South Pole location is preferred, hence why they now do ozone-sondes from there. And the reason the increased prevalence and persistence of the Southern Ozone “Hole” in October since 1984 is well documented, i.e. “several studies (including Waugh and Randel 1999; Waugh et al. 1999; Karpetchko et al. 2005; Black and McDaniel 2007) have indicated a trend over the 1980s and 1990s toward a later vortex breakdown.”

    http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/waugh+polvani-PlumbFestVolume-2010.pdf

  147. Phil. says:

    justthefactswuwt says:
    March 14, 2014 at 8:54 pm
    Phil. says: March 14, 2014 at 7:28 am

    I asked you “What do you think causes the water vapor, nitrogen oxide and methane “holes”?” and you did not respond. Can we take this as an admission that you cannot answer this question without contradicting your claim that “regardless of the dynamical situation without the chemical depletion there would be no ‘hole’!”?

    Water vapor decreases in the stratosphere because of condensation, after all that’s how Brewer discovered the circulation that’s named after him. As it descends over the pole the extremely low temperature (-78ºC) causes even more condensation (PSCs), NO reacts to form nitric acid which also condenses in the PSCs it is also sequestered in the form of ClONO2. Again these processes are chemical in nature something you choose to ignore. Methane is depleted in the stratosphere by oxidation (with OH) and is a source of about a third of stratospheric water vapor.

    “Clearly the actual data shows that the ozone concentration above the ‘hole’ is actually higher than the ozone concentration at the lower altitudes.”

    We seem to be at an impasse here. When there is not a Polar Vortex in the Southern Hemisphere, does ozone concentration increase or decrease between 25 km and 50 km?

    The data I provided from sondes shows that O3 increases between 50km and 25km then below 25km dramatically drops how does your mechanism explain that? The graph shows that above 25km the O3 profile is the same in July and Oct i.e. it is not effected by the presence of the vortex, it is below 25km where the changes occur!

    And lest you think at this is only the case in Northern Hemisphere, and in the Southern Hemisphere magically, “ozone rich air falls below ~20km it encounters the Cl and ClO and the chemical kinetics takes over and that ozone is destroyed”, let us also look at the Southern Ozone “Hole”:

    A bit disingenuous of you to omit the qualifier ‘relatively’ from the above quote! It might seem like ‘magic’ to someone like you who doesn’t understand chemical kinetics but to a chemical kineticist it’s elementary.
    I looked at the data you provided, on that date the ‘hole’ is centered over the peninsula, at the various altitudes the data is as follows:
    Altitude min O3
    55km 2.5ppm
    50 4.0
    42 5.0
    35 8.0
    31 8.0
    23 2.0!

    So your data bears out the sonde data I cited, O3 increases as the air descends then dramatically drops below about 25km, which is due to chemical reactions.
    Unfortunately, NOAA’s Ozone Mixing Archives;

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/sbuv2to/archive/sh/

    don’t go below 30 hPa/mb ~ 23 km, so we can’t see the magical “encounters” “below ~20km” where the “Cl and ClO and the chemical kinetics takes over and that ozone is destroyed”.
    As shown above we see the start of that with a 4-fold drop in O3 concentration!

    However, it is apparent that the air within the Polar Vortex “above ~20km” has low concentrations of ozone, thus your assertion “that relatively ozone rich air falls below ~20km” is falsified. Can you admit that you are wrong?
    Actually your data confirms the data that I cited that above 20km the air has higher concentrations of O3 than below during the times of the spring ‘hole’. So will you now admit that you are wrong as shown by your own data?

    “At about 31km the pO3 is ~3mPa, as the air descends to ~23km the pO3 increases to ~6mPa due to the photolysis reactions. As it descends over the next couple of km the pO3 rapidly drops to less than 1mPa, so clearly there is more O3 at 30km than at 20km not less as you incorrectly assert above.”

    Now you are just playing games because you know you’re losing.

    No, that is an accurate description of the sonde data and as shown above of the data you produced!

    There is clearly less O2 with altitude. I never asserted that “is more O3 at 30km than at 20km”,

    No I said that and was correct, I quoted you correctly, unfortunately the data shows you to be wrong, as the air descends the concentration of O3 increases until kinetics takes over below ~25km in the spring and it dramatically decreases.

    I wrote that “that there is clearly less Ozone up at 30, 40 and 50 km”. You can play with the starting point, ~23 km, 20 km or ~ 18 km depending on day, season, vortex size, strength and penetration, but that doesn’t change the fact that there is ” is clearly less Ozone in the air up at 30, 40 and 50 km which “descends vertically through the center of the vortex, moving air to lower altitudes over several months.”

    Clearly both sets of data show that this ‘fact’ is not true!

    Furthermore, Ozone-Sonde don’t measure absolute Ozone concentration rather;

    “ozone-sonde observations often use the ‘partial pressure’ of ozone as their unit.

    Which is an ‘absolute’ measure, ppm is a ‘mixing ratio’ or ‘relative’ measure.

    ozone-sonde observations using “‘partial pressure’ of ozone as their unit” can be misleading to the uninformed.

    Perhaps, I work with them on a regular basis and don’t find them to be misleading, in any case the mixing ratio data you cite tells the same story so there should be no confusion.

    A simple dynamical mechanism explains the observations, whereas the convoluted chemical mechanism you assert is falsified by the observations that the Ozone Hole extends well above the supposed “~20km” where you claim “relatively ozone rich air falls below” and “encounters the Cl and ClO and the chemical kinetics takes over and that ozone is destroyed.”

    The observations indicate that as the air descends the concentration of O3 inside the vortex increases until it reaches ~25km whereupon it rapidly decreases, you have not explained that with your dynamical mechanism.

    “Re-evaluating many total ozone series back to 1957 based on meta-information and calibration information” is the very definition of suspect data…

    You claimed that you cited 5 references, now it’s just one which doesn’t demonstrate what you claim. It’s not ‘suspect’, it’s what good scientists do, you constantly check and recalibrate your apparatus and keep good records of all your readings and the calibration, and constantly re-evaluate procedures and data. That’s why I kept sources of analytical standard gas mixtures in my laboratory at significant expense.

  148. Phil. says: March 15, 2014 at 7:26 am

    Water vapor decreases in the stratosphere because of condensation, after all that’s how Brewer discovered the circulation that’s named after him. As it descends over the pole the extremely low temperature (-78ºC) causes even more condensation (PSCs), NO reacts to form nitric acid which also condenses in the PSCs it is also sequestered in the form of ClONO2. Again these processes are chemical in nature something you choose to ignore. Methane is depleted in the stratosphere by oxidation (with OH) and is a source of about a third of stratospheric water vapor.

    So you think that the Ozone “Hole”, Water Vapor “Hole”, Nitrogen Oxide “Hole” and Methane “Hole” all occur within the Polar Vortex solely due to condensation and chemical mechanisms? Excluding condensation and chemical mechanisms, do you think there would be any “Holes” within the low pressure area and descending cold air in the Polar Vortex?

    The data I provided from sondes shows that O3 increases between 50km and 25km then below 25km dramatically drops how does your mechanism explain that? The graph shows that above 25km the O3 profile is the same in July and Oct i.e. it is not effected by the presence of the vortex, it is below 25km where the changes occur!

    That’s when the Polar Vortex/Polar Night Jet moves below 25 km on its decent, i.e.:

    “Throughout the winter, air from the upper stratosphere moves poleward and descends into the middle stratosphere. In the SH lower to middle stratosphere, strongest descent occurs near the edge of the polar vortex. The NH shows a similar pattern in late winter, but in early winter strongest descent is near the center of the vortex. Strong barriers to latitudinal mixing exist above =420 K throughout the winter. Below this, the polar night jet is weak in early winter, so air that descends below that level mixes between polar and middle latitudes. In late winter, parcels descend less, and the polar night jet moves downward, so there is less latitudinal mixing. The degree of mixing in the lower stratosphere thus depends strongly on the position and evolution of the polar night jet.”

    “Diagnostics of mixing show a strong barrier to mixing at the edge of the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere, even into December in the SH, In the middle stratosphere, stratospheric warmings cause mixing to increase, and the vortex edge, as identified by a minimum in mixing, to move to higher PV values. This is consistent with previous studies showing the shrinking of the vortex and weakening of PV gradients during stratospheric warmings. As expected, considerably more mixing is seen in the NH than in the SH, In the lower stratosphere, in early winter the ,po]ar night jet usually does not extend significantly below =400 K, and parcels that descend below this level experience little barrier to mixing into mid-latitudes. As the winter progresses, the polar night jet moves downwards, and the parcels descend more slowly. Consistent with this, our simulations show considerably less mixing of polar air into mid-latitudes in late winter than in early winter in both hemispheres. In the presence of this polar night jet structure in the lower stratosphere and the sub-tropical jet in the upper troposphere, the degree of mixing of between polar and mid-latitude air in the lower stratosphere is strongly dependent on the amount of descent.”

    http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/33809/1/94-0540.pdf

    Here is a simple view of the Ozone Layer;

    Figure 2.14: Ozone Concentration vs. Height (Ajavon, et al., 2007)- Click the pic to view at source

    here is what happens to Column Ozone when the Polar Vortex descends into and through the Ozone Layer:

    Figure 2.14: Ozone Concentration vs. Height (Ajavon, et al., 2007)- Click the pic to view at source

    and here is an animation of it occurring in 2013:

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/spo_oz/movies/index.html

    The dynamical mechanism explains all of the observations and Occam takes over from there…

    A bit disingenuous of you to omit the qualifier ‘relatively’ from the above quote!

    This “relatively ozone rich air” that “falls below ~20km”, what is it relatively rich in relation to?

    It might seem like ‘magic’ to someone like you who doesn’t understand chemical kinetics but to a chemical kineticist it’s elementary.

    It’s magic, because there is simple dynamical mechanism to explain the observations and a complex, convoluted and unnecessary CFC based chemical mechanism that doesn’t appear to be borne out by the observations, as seen by the failure of the Montreal Protocol to put an end all of these “Holes”…

    So your data bears out the sonde data I cited, O3 increases as the air descends then dramatically drops below about 25km, which is due to chemical reactions.

    So now you’ve moved the “chemical reactions” goal posts up to “25km”? Is this because the observations don’t support your statement that “relatively ozone rich air falls below ~20km it encounters the Cl and ClO”? According to NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory, Global Monitoring Division:

    “Antarctic ozone depletion occurs primarily between the altitudes of 12 and 20 kilometers, a region where polar stratospheric clouds, necessary for the chlorine-catalyzed chemical ozone destruction process, readily form.”

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/spo_oz/1220plot.html

    So tell us, at what altitude does the “magic” occur?

    Actually your data confirms the data that I cited that above 20km the air has higher concentrations of O3 than below during the times of the spring ‘hole’. So will you now admit that you are wrong as shown by your own data?

    That doesn’t prove anything. This isn’t a simple linear process, it is a massive swirling Polar Vortex with anticyclones occurring around it, i.e.:

    “Stratospheric anticyclones are present and interact with the polar vortex in a variety of situations. Stratospheric ‘‘surf zones,’’ for example, [McIntyre and Palmer, 1984] are generally not zonally symmetric in midlatitudes but result from the presence of one or more large-scale, quasi-stationary anticyclones [Fairlie and O’Neill, 1988]. Thus, in the discussion of planetary wave breaking (PWB) [McIntyre and Palmer, 1983], the presence and involvement of anti-cyclones needs to be emphasized [see also O’Neill and Pope, 1988; O’Neill et al., 1994]. This PWB process is efficient at irreversibly mixing air of different origins, however, the strongest mixing does not necessarily occur in the core of anticyclones. Regions of ‘‘chaotic advection’’ [Pierce and Fairlie, 1993] occur along the periphery of anticyclones. Stratospheric anticyclones also play a critical role in the following processes. They create high latitude nonlinear critical layers [Salby et al., 1990] along their central latitude. The ‘‘Kelvins cats eye’’ solution [Warn and Warn, 1978] is a closed anticyclonic circulation [O’Neill and Pope, 1988]. Cross-equatorial flow, visible in tracer fields [Randel et al., 1993; Chen et al., 1994], and the movement of material lines [Waugh, 1993], are associated with anticyclonic air with low isentropic potential vorticity (PV). Zonal harmonic waves 1 and 2 otherwise refer to 1 or 2 anticyclones present around a latitude circle. Anticyclones have long been regarded as important in the development of sudden stratospheric warmings (SSW) [e.g., Scherhag, 1952; Labitzke, 1977, 1981a, 1981b; McIntyre, 1982], a
    phenomenon characterized by rapid warming and deceleration of the polar night jet (PNJ). In particular, ‘‘Canadian’’ type warmings are due to the intensification of the Aleutian High (hereafter AH) [Labitzke, 1977].

    http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~mag/polarvortices.pdf

    “A three-dimensional picture has been drawn of the final warming in the stratosphere. The breakup of the polar vortex is characterized by large fragments of polar air being stripped from the vortex and drawn out into increasingly narrow tongues in low latitudes. In the SH, this process is relatively slow, and these fragments may maintain their identity for weeks; in the NH, the final warming is dynamically induced, and is more rapid, with parcels from the mid-stratospheric polar vortex being spread throughout the hemisphere by early April in the year shown here.The large degree of interannual variability in the NH late winter suggests that many variations on this behavior might be observed during other years, For the period of UARS observations, the vortex in the lower stratosphere remains intact, and many of the air parcels confined within it, into December in the SH, and into April in the NH, well after the vortex has broken up in the mid-stratosphere.”

    http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/33809/1/94-0540.pdf

    Thus ‘regions of ‘‘chaotic advection’’’ due to anti-cyclone interactions can occur and Polar Vortex strength and persistence can vary significantly from top to bottom, in fact “the vortex in the lower stratosphere” can remain “intact, and many of the air parcels confined within it” “well after the vortex has broken up in the mid-stratosphere.” The data you cite are well within the expected observations of the dynamical mechanism described.

    No I said that and was correct, I quoted you correctly, unfortunately the data shows you to be wrong, as the air descends the concentration of O3 increases until kinetics takes over below ~25km in the spring and it dramatically decreases.

    Firstly, you didn’t quote me, you wrote “so clearly there is more O3 at 30km than at 20km not less as you incorrectly assert above.”, which is not a “quote” but rather an intentional misstatement. I wrote that “that there is clearly less Ozone up at 30, 40 and 50 km”, and my statement is correct. You just want to get bogged down in the minutiae…

    Perhaps, I work with them on a regular basis and don’t find them to be misleading, in any case the mixing ratio data you cite tells the same story so there should be no confusion.

    Then you should appreciate why the observations support a dynamical mechanism.

    The observations indicate that as the air descends the concentration of O3 inside the vortex increases until it reaches ~25km whereupon it rapidly decreases, you have not explained that with your dynamical mechanism.

    Yes, I have, i.e. Vortex decent below ~25km causes O3 to rapidly decrease, as the low pressure and relatively low ozone in the air descending within the polar vortex create an area of low Ozone concentration within the Ozone layer. And thus an Ozone “Hole” occurs, with no need for a chemical mechanism.

    You still have not explained why there is an Ozone “Hole” at 2 hPa/mb – ~42 km;

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center

    above the “~20km” or “25km” where you claim “relatively ozone rich air falls below” and “encounters the Cl and ClO and the chemical kinetics takes over and that ozone is destroyed.”

    If air is descending within the Polar Vortex, and “the chemical kinetics” due to “encounters the Cl and ClO” occur at “~20km” or now “25km”, why is there an Ozone “Hole” at ~42 km?

    You claimed that you cited 5 references, now it’s just one which doesn’t demonstrate what you claim.

    More of the minutiae, I cited 1 reference on the quality of the BAS data and 4 references on the quality of TOMS data. You are just trying to waste time, try focusing on the substance of the debate that you are losing.

    It’s not ‘suspect’, it’s what good scientists do, you constantly check and recalibrate your apparatus and keep good records of all your readings and the calibration, and constantly re-evaluate procedures and data. That’s why I kept sources of analytical standard gas mixtures in my laboratory at significant expense.

    I am all for checking and recalibrating your apparatus, keeping “good records of all your readings and the calibration”, and constantly re-evaluate procedures and data.” However, what they did was “Re-evaluating many total ozone series back to 1957.” Re-evaluating old measurements sounds a lot like the Bucket Model games that were played with HadSST3, HADISST and ERSST.v3b;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/25/historical-sea-surface-temperature-adjustmentscorrections-aka-the-bucket-model/

    and it is definitely suspect.

  149. Phil. says:

    justthefactswuwt says:
    March 16, 2014 at 1:11 am
    Phil. says: March 15, 2014 at 7:26 am
    So you think that the Ozone “Hole”, Water Vapor “Hole”, Nitrogen Oxide “Hole” and Methane “Hole” all occur within the Polar Vortex solely due to condensation and chemical mechanisms? Excluding condensation and chemical mechanisms, do you think there would be any “Holes” within the low pressure area and descending cold air in the Polar Vortex?

    Correct, those ‘holes’ as you describe them all involve reactive and condensible species.

    Firstly, you didn’t quote me, you wrote “so clearly there is more O3 at 30km than at 20km not less as you incorrectly assert above.”, which is not a “quote” but rather an intentional misstatement. I wrote that “that there is clearly less Ozone up at 30, 40 and 50 km”, and my statement is correct. You just want to get bogged down in the minutiae…

    The ‘minutiae’ you refer to is the actual data which you chose to ignore! Below is the actual quote that I referred to.

    Your graph demonstrates my point quite well, thank you.

    “Clearly the actual data shows that the ozone concentration above the ‘hole’ is actually higher than the ozone concentration at the lower altitudes. As that relatively ozone rich air falls below ~20km it encounters the Cl and ClO and the chemical kinetics takes over and that ozone is destroyed.”

    What are you looking at? Both of the graphs show that there is clearly less Ozone up at 30, 40 and 50 km, which is the “air from very high altitudes” that “descends vertically through the center of the vortex, moving air to lower altitudes over several months.”

    Your statement clearly is wrong, here is that data you were looking at since you appear to have difficulty with graphs:
    Alt O3
    40 no data
    30 ~3 mPa
    25 ~5
    23 ~7
    20 ~1
    17 ~0 (in July ~15)
    15 ~1 (~15)
    12 ~4 (~4)
    10 ~4

    So the “air from very high altitudes” that “descends vertically through the center of the vortex, moving air to lower altitudes over several months”, shows a gradually increasing level of O3 due to photolysis and chemical reaction. Between 23km where it peaks and 20km the O3 concentration drops to about zero and stays that way until you get below 15km (the range where PSCs are formed). In what way is there clearly less Ozone up at 30km than in the ‘hole’?

    The data you provided goes to higher altitudes:
    Altitude min O3
    55km 2.5ppm
    50 4.0
    42 5.0
    35 8.0
    31 8.0
    23 2.0!

    It shows the same effect, there is more O3 at 50, 40 and 30 km than there is at 23km.

    “The observations indicate that as the air descends the concentration of O3 inside the vortex increases until it reaches ~25km whereupon it rapidly decreases, you have not explained that with your dynamical mechanism.”

    Yes, I have, i.e. Vortex decent below ~25km causes O3 to rapidly decrease, as the low pressure and relatively low ozone in the air descending within the polar vortex create an area of low Ozone concentration within the Ozone layer. And thus an Ozone “Hole” occurs, with no need for a chemical mechanism.

    How on earth does this describe what happens? At 31km this descending air has 8ppm and then it drops to 2.0 by 23km, how if there’s no chemistry, by your dynamical mechanism how does that happen? You are the one who is relying on magic, you’re saying that air with 8ppm of O3 descends a few km and then 3/4 of the O3 just disappears! Where does it go?

    You still have not explained why there is an Ozone “Hole” at 2 hPa/mb – ~42 km;
    above the “~20km” or “25km” where you claim “relatively ozone rich air falls below” and “encounters the Cl and ClO and the chemical kinetics takes over and that ozone is destroyed.”

    Now I see your problem, you don’t know what the ozone hole is! At 42km you see the descending air per Brewer-Dobson, that is normal. In the summer and fall that descending air gradually increases to ~16ppm between ~20 and 15km, that is ‘normal’. In the spring that peak drops to about zero due to the photolysis reactions, that is the Ozone hole! In the 1999 data I cited the data above 23km is unchanged between July and October and July has a Dobson number of 255, in October the Dobson number drops to 111, entirely due to the changes between 23 and 10km, that is the ‘hole’, it always refers to the changes in the lower stratosphere not the upper stratosphere. The fact that it is defined by the Dobson number appears to have confused you, that defines the extent of the ‘hole’, but the ‘hole’ itself is the loss of ozone in the lower stratosphere.

  150. Phil. says: March 16, 2014 at 6:43 am

    Correct, those ‘holes’ as you describe them all involve reactive and condensible species.

    I don’t necessarily disagree that they “all involve reactive and condensible species.” The question you did not answer, is “excluding condensation and chemical mechanisms, do you think there would be any “Holes” within the low pressure area and descending cold air in the Polar Vortex?”

    So the “air from very high altitudes” that “descends vertically through the center of the vortex, moving air to lower altitudes over several months”, shows a gradually increasing level of O3 due to photolysis and chemical reaction. Between 23km where it peaks and 20km the O3 concentration drops to about zero and stays that way until you get below 15km (the range where PSCs are formed). In what way is there clearly less Ozone up at 30km than in the ‘hole’?

    You seem to be confused by the data from one day and at very specific altitudes, versus seeing the bigger picture. I will offer two very simple statements with supporting data:

    Ozone concentrations tend to decrease with height starting at approximately ~23 km:

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center

    The Polar Vortex transports air from higher in the atmosphere to lower in the atmosphere:

    “In the NH vortex, air parcels which were initialized at 18 km on November 1, descended about 6 km by March 21, while air initially at 25 km descended 9 km in the same time period. This represents an average descent rate in the lower stratosphere of 1.3 to 2 km per month. Air initialized at 50 km descended 27 km between November 1 and March 21.

    In the SH vortex, parcels initialized at 18 km on March 1, descended 3 km, while air at 25 km descended 5–7 km by the end of October. This is equivalent to an average descent in the lower stratosphere of 0.4 to 0.9 km per month during this 8-month period. Air initialized at 52 km descended 26–29 km between March 1 and October 31. In both the NH and the SH, computed descent rates increased markedly with height. The descent for the NH winter of 1992–1993 and the SH winter of 1992 computed with a three-dimensional trajectory model using the same radiation code was within 1 to 2 km of that calculated by the one-dimensional model, thus validating the vortex averaging procedure. The computed descent rates generally agree well with observations of long-lived tracers, thus validating the radiative transfer model.”

    https://earthref.org/ERR/59278/

    As a result, one would expect to see an Ozone “Hole” below ~23, because air parcels with lower concentrations of Ozone are descended below this point within the Polar Vortex. Do you agree or disagree?

    The data you provided goes to higher altitudes:
    Altitude min O3
    55km 2.5ppm
    50 4.0
    42 5.0
    35 8.0
    31 8.0
    23 2.0!

    It shows the same effect, there is more O3 at 50, 40 and 30 km than there is at 23km.

    Again, this is one day and is occurs above “the altitudes of 12 and 20 kilometers” where “Antarctic ozone depletion occurs primarily”.

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/spo_oz/1220plot.html

    Do you think NOAA is wrong about the height where “Antarctic ozone depletion occurs”? Furthermore, using the data I provided above and you cited, Ozone at ~55 km 2.5ppm, “air initialized at 52 km descended 26–29 km between March 1 and October 31″, Ozone at ~ 23 km “2.0!”, magic how that happens…

    How on earth does this describe what happens? At 31km this descending air has 8ppm and then it drops to 2.0 by 23km, how if there’s no chemistry, by your dynamical mechanism how does that happen? You are the one who is relying on magic, you’re saying that air with 8ppm of O3 descends a few km and then 3/4 of the O3 just disappears! Where does it go?

    These are parcels of air within a swirling and sometimes displaced, perturbed and split polar vortex, descending over many months. It is a chaotic dynamical system that is constantly in motion. You seem to be looking a single day and assuming that presents the whole picture.

    At 42km you see the descending air per Brewer-Dobson, that is normal. In the summer and fall that descending air gradually increases to ~16ppm between ~20 and 15km, that is ‘normal’.

    Great, now we are making headway, you accept that there is a naturally occurring Ozone “Hole” within the Polar Vortex at ~42 km. Now tell us, at what altitude does this natural Ozone “Hole” become an unnatural Ozone “Hole”?

    in October the Dobson number drops to 111, entirely due to the changes between 23 and 10km, that is the ‘hole’

    Yes, this is explained by the Polar Vortex forming and air parcels descending 10s of kilometers within it. What part of the concept are you struggling with?

    The fact that it is defined by the Dobson number appears to have confused you, that defines the extent of the ‘hole’

    Not confused, more amused. The mainstream definition of the Ozone “Hole” is arbitrary and laughable i.e.:

    “A ‘hole’ is arbitrarily defined as an area where the volume of ozone is less than 220 Dobson units, a decrease of about one-third of the normal value”:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=I-Br1CEx8fcC&pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=220+dobson+arbitrary+ozone&source=bl&ots=Q4I0b1Cr0D&sig=laqwocak0P_l2xyb6ZotyUMonZw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=y3EmU93WIaOf0AHekoGQCA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAw

    “We noted that the ozone hole is not actually a hole but a region of heavily depleted ozone in the atmosphere this is defined, slightly arbitrarily, as region where the total ozone column (TOC) is less than 220 DU”

    http://books.google.com/books?id=YZzGFPnaEv0C&pg=PA406&lpg=PA406&dq=220+dobson+arbitrary+ozone&source=bl&ots=k2RAuouiqu&sig=Nr_-3cXmDDTvxNCAUiRdKWjUGb0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=y3EmU93WIaOf0AHekoGQCA&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=220%20dobson%20arbitrary%20ozone&f=false

    “The value of 220 Dobson Units is chosen since total ozone values of less than 220 Dobson Units were not found in the historic observations over Antarctica prior to 1979.”

    http://earth.rice.edu/earthupdate/atmosphere/topics/ozone/topic_01.html

    As I pointed out above the “historic observations over Antarctica prior to 1979″ were limited to a single station on the coast and the data has since been “re-evaluated”. What a joke…

    but the ‘hole’ itself is the loss of ozone in the lower stratosphere.

    You haven’t demonstrated any “loss”, whereas I have clearly demonstrated the dynamical mechanisms of decent and low pressure. Excluding chemical mechanisms, what do you think the value in Dobson Units of total column ozone would be due to the naturally occurring Ozone “Hole” within the Polar Vortex?

  151. Phil. says:

    justthefactswuwt says:
    March 16, 2014 at 9:13 pm
    Phil. says: March 16, 2014 at 6:43 am

    Correct, those ‘holes’ as you describe them all involve reactive and condensible species.

    I don’t necessarily disagree that they “all involve reactive and condensible species.” The question you did not answer, is “excluding condensation and chemical mechanisms, do you think there would be any “Holes” within the low pressure area and descending cold air in the Polar Vortex?”</em.

    Clearly not, bearing in mind that you're not very clear on what constitutes a 'hole'. The reason that the stratosphere is depleted in H2O is because it is a condensible species. Some of this loss is made up by the reaction of CH4, the concentration of those gases depends on those properties, it is pointless to speculate on what they would be otherwise!

    “So the “air from very high altitudes” that “descends vertically through the center of the vortex, moving air to lower altitudes over several months”, shows a gradually increasing level of O3 due to photolysis and chemical reaction. Between 23km where it peaks and 20km the O3 concentration drops to about zero and stays that way until you get below 15km (the range where PSCs are formed). In what way is there clearly less Ozone up at 30km than in the ‘hole’?”

    You seem to be confused by the data from one day and at very specific altitudes, versus seeing the bigger picture. I will offer two very simple statements with supporting data:

    The confusion is all yours which is why you appear to think the loss of O3 occurs without chemical reaction contrary to all the scientists who study the phenomenon and contrary to the data (even that you provide yourself). You appear to have a phobia about chemistry and clearly don’t understand it which is why you don’t understand what’s going on.

    The Polar Vortex transports air from higher in the atmosphere to lower in the atmosphere:

    “In the NH vortex, air parcels which were initialized at 18 km on November 1, descended about 6 km by March 21, while air initially at 25 km descended 9 km in the same time period. This represents an average descent rate in the lower stratosphere of 1.3 to 2 km per month. Air initialized at 50 km descended 27 km between November 1 and March 21.

    In the SH vortex, parcels initialized at 18 km on March 1, descended 3 km, while air at 25 km descended 5–7 km by the end of October. This is equivalent to an average descent in the lower stratosphere of 0.4 to 0.9 km per month during this 8-month period. Air initialized at 52 km descended 26–29 km between March 1 and October 31. In both the NH and the SH, computed descent rates increased markedly with height. The descent for the NH winter of 1992–1993 and the SH winter of 1992 computed with a three-dimensional trajectory model using the same radiation code was within 1 to 2 km of that calculated by the one-dimensional model, thus validating the vortex averaging procedure. The computed descent rates generally agree well with observations of long-lived tracers, thus validating the radiative transfer model.”

    https://earthref.org/ERR/59278/

    As a result, one would expect to see an Ozone “Hole” below ~23, because air parcels with lower concentrations of Ozone are descended below this point within the Polar Vortex. Do you agree or disagree?

    Totally disagree, you’re ignoring the data that you provided.

    “The data you provided goes to higher altitudes:
    Altitude min O3
    55km 2.5ppm
    50 4.0
    42 5.0
    35 8.0
    31 8.0
    23 2.0!

    It shows the same effect, there is more O3 at 50, 40 and 30 km than there is at 23km.”

    Again, this is one day and is occurs above “the altitudes of 12 and 20 kilometers” where “Antarctic ozone depletion occurs primarily”.

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/spo_oz/1220plot.html

    Do you think NOAA is wrong about the height where “Antarctic ozone depletion occurs”? Furthermore, using the data I provided above and you cited, Ozone at ~55 km 2.5ppm, “air initialized at 52 km descended 26–29 km between March 1 and October 31″, Ozone at ~ 23 km “2.0!”, magic how that happens…

    “How on earth does this describe what happens? At 31km this descending air has 8ppm and then it drops to 2.0 by 23km, how if there’s no chemistry, by your dynamical mechanism how does that happen? You are the one who is relying on magic, you’re saying that air with 8ppm of O3 descends a few km and then 3/4 of the O3 just disappears! Where does it go?”

    You continue your disingenuous behavior of removing adverbs from quotes which makes me suspect your honesty! There is a huge difference between “ozone depletion occurs primarily” and “Antarctic ozone depletion occurs”. So no NOAA is not wrong but the data provided by both of us shows that the depletion started on those occasions above 20km, that is not contradictory with the statement that it occurs primarily between 12 and 20 km since that is where most of the O3 is prior to its destruction by Cl released by the PSCs that are formed in that altitude range. In any given spring season the exact height at which these processes occur will be different.

    To address your inability of seeing what your own data shows I will go through it slowly for you.

    using the data I provided above and you cited, Ozone at ~55 km 2.5ppm, “air initialized at 52 km descended 26–29 km between March 1 and October 31″, Ozone at ~ 23 km “2.0!”, magic how that happens…

    Not magic, chemistry, why do you ignore what happens at the intervening heights?
    That packet at ~55km starts off with 2.5ppm O3 it takes about a month to descend to ~50km, during that time the data shows that the O3 concentration increased to 4ppm due to photolysis reactions. Over the next month or so it descends to ~42km and O3 further increases to 5ppm, followed by a further increase in O3 (to 8 ppm) as it continues to descend through 35 km. Other than in the spring further descent leads to further increase in O3 (to ~16 ppm) between 20 and 15 km followed by a decrease in O3 to tropospheric values. This is what happened even in the spring before the advent of CFCs. However in the spring that your data refers to between 31 km and 23 km the O3 concentration in that packet of air drops to 2 ppm, your mechanism has no way to account for this!
    The concentration of O3 in the descending packets of air increases and decreases due to chemical processes and can’t be explained without considering that chemistry.

    “At 42km you see the descending air per Brewer-Dobson, that is normal. In the summer and fall that descending air gradually increases to ~16ppm between ~20 and 15km, that is ‘normal’.”

    Great, now we are making headway, you accept that there is a naturally occurring Ozone “Hole” within the Polar Vortex at ~42 km. Now tell us, at what altitude does this natural Ozone “Hole” become an unnatural Ozone “Hole”?

    In the spring when the air in the vicinity of the PSCs warms up and they release Cl2 and the UV light causes the photolysis to Cl and the consequent rapid depletion of the O3. The altitude range where this occurs is somewhere in the altitude range between 25 and 12 km depending on the exact altitudes of the PSCs in that spring (depends on the weather). Again your mechanism can’t explain this since it can’t explain why this process wouldn’t occur in the winter or why it would suddenly occur over that range of altitudes in such a short time.

    “in October the Dobson number drops to 111, entirely due to the changes between 23 and 10km, that is the ‘hole’”

    Yes, this is explained by the Polar Vortex forming and air parcels descending 10s of kilometers within it. What part of the concept are you struggling with?

    As shown that is incapable of explaining what happens without the chemistry, what part of the concept of the chemical reaction of an extremely reactive species like O3 are you struggling with, other than your bias which causes you to refuse to accept any role for CFCs?

    You haven’t demonstrated any “loss”, whereas I have clearly demonstrated the dynamical mechanisms of decent and low pressure. Excluding chemical mechanisms, what do you think the value of Dobson Units of total column ozone would be due to the naturally occurring Ozone “Hole” within the Polar Vortex?

    As pointed out above you have failed to produce a workable mechanism to explain the changes in O3 concentration that are observed, hand waving about chaotic effects doesn’t cut it. The naturally occurring value would be about 300 Dobson as I’ve said before, just like it was in the 50’s and 60’s.

  152. Phil. says: March 17, 2014 at 7:11 am

    Clearly not, bearing in mind that you’re not very clear on what constitutes a ‘hole’.

    I am not going to play semantics with you about the definition of a “hole” and we aren’t using the arbitrary Ozone “hole” definition I noted above. As such, excluding condensation and chemical mechanisms, do you think there would be any areas of low concentrations of Ozone, Water Vapor, Nitrogen Oxide and/or Methane within the low pressure area and descending cold air in the Polar Vortex?”

    it is pointless to speculate on what they would be otherwise!

    A CFC based Ozone “Hole” is speculation, the dynamical effects of the polar vortex can be readily observed.

    The confusion is all yours which is why you appear to think the loss of O3 occurs without chemical reaction

    As I said above, “I don’t necessarily disagree that they “all involve reactive and condensible species.” However, it is probably similar to CO2, a minor variable and a kernel of truth, blown up to support an all encompassing narrative…

    contrary to all the scientists who study the phenomenon and contrary to the data (even that you provide yourself).

    An appeal to consensus, it was just a matter of time. Let’s see what “all the scientists who study the phenomenon” think:

    “A hypothesis is advanced that natural dynamical processes might explain much of the observed late winter ozone decreases over Antarctica. For this to be the case, sometime after 1979 there must have been a substantial reduction of the wintertime planetary-scale disturbance activity in the Southern Hemisphere troposphere. The expected stratospheric response to such a natural process is to reduce wintertime polar ozone, prolong the life of the polar vortex, reduce the transport of ozone out of the middle stratosphere, and to increase the possibility of polar rising motion shortly after the return of the sun to high latitudes. All of these effects are in qualitative agreement with the observed ozone changes.”

    “We advance a dynamical hypothesis as a possible explanation for the large late winter We advance a dynamical hypothesis as decreases in Antarctic ozone since about 1980. The hypothesis assumes there has been a significant decrease in the magnitude of Southern Hemisphere winter tropospheric forcing due to planetary-scale disturbances. Observed decreasing “trends” in October polar vortex temperature and September vertical component of EP flux are compatible with this hypothesis. A number of ozone transport responses to this decreased forcing are expected. The meridional slopes of ozone mixing isolines should be flatter, relative to isentropic surfaces, with lower values at the Pole. The decreased forcing should lead to a longer winter, as manifested by the polar vortex lasting longer. The systematic downward trend in ozone is expected in part to be due to the several years required for the polar lower stratosphere to come into equilibrium with the new reduced troposphere forcing. Reduced hemispheric-mean ozone amounts are expected because the efficiency of removal of ozone from the middle stratosphere is roughly proportional to the square of the eddy-forced diabatic meridional circulation. The nearly 10% drop in total ozone over a 2-week period in September mmy be due to a radiative-dynamical induced transient rising motion in response to the so-called “flywheel” effect. This mechanism is unable to explain the observed decrease without addition of an additional polar cap absorber. We speculate here that the PSC’s (assumed to last longer in this colder, weaker dynamics regime) mmy provide the required additional absorption. Finally, none of these arguments presented here preclude significant chemical effects. They do, however, strongly indicate that dynamical factors have been important in shaping the observed character of the phenomenon.”

    https://gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/jdm8602.pdf

    “Dramatic springtime depletions of ozone in polar regions require that polar stratospheric air has a high degree of dynamical isolation and extremely cold temperatures necessary for the formation of polar stratospheric clouds. Both of these conditions are produced within the stratospheric winter polar vortex. Recent aircraft missions have provided new information about the structure of polar vortices during winter and their relation to polar ozone depletions. The aircraft data show that gradients of potential vorticity and the concentration of conservative trace species are large at the transition from mid-latitude to polar air. The presence of such sharp gradients at the boundary of polar air implies that the inward mixing of heat and constituents is strongly inhibited and that the perturbed polar stratospheric chemistry associated with the ozone hole is isolated from the rest of the stratosphere until the vortex breaks up in late spring. The overall size of the polar vortex thus limits the maximum areal coverage of the annual polar ozone depletions. Because it appears that this limit has not been reached for the Antarctic depletions, the possibility of future increases in the size of the Antarctic ozone hole is left open. In the Northern Hemisphere, the smaller vortex and the more restricted region of cold temperatures suggest that this region has a smaller theoretical maximum for column ozone depletion, about 40 percent of the currently observed change in the Antarctic ozone column in spring.”

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/251/4989/46.short

    “The unusual dynamical situation over Europe in the winter 1991/92 caused an unusual behaviour of the total ozone. The strongest negative deviations from the long-term monthly means occured in January. A very cold middle stratosphere developed at the edge of the polar vortex above a warm anticyclonic block in the troposphere. The corresponding low temperature in the tropopause region was located just beneath the coldest air in the stratosphere.

    A high positive correlation between the temperature and ozone partial pressure was derived at the edge of the polar stratospheric vortex for the tropopause region and for the middle stratosphere. The physical background was vertical motions changing temperature as well as the ozone content. That means unusually low ozone values can be expected when an elevated tropopause is combined with the adiabatically cooled end of the upwelling branch of an enhanced planetary wave in the middle stratosphere. It is shown that in February 1990, when extremely low total ozone was also observed over Scandinavia during a short anticyclonic blocking, this event was caused by the same process. However, during transient events the tropopause temperature is often anticorrelated with the middle stratospheric temperature (a tropospheric ridge reaching into the stratosphere has a cold high tropopause, but a warm middle stratosphere). The forced vertical motions result in extreme ozone columns only when they are in the same direction in both layers.

    The enhanced wave activity was connected with a strong polar warming in the upper stratosphere in both winters. At 30 hPa in the middle stratosphere the warm center was situated over Eastern Siberia and the coldest part shifted towards Northern Europe.

    The same situation was available in 11 cases during the fourteen years series of TOMS data (1979–1992), when total ozone reached values below 225 DU at the edge of the stratospheric polar vortex: enhanced wave activity in the middle stratosphere, polar warming in the upper stratosphere, shift of the coldest part of the polar vortex towards northern Europe over a cold high tropopause of a tropospheric anticyclone.”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/93GL03020/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

    “During the Airborne Antarctic Ozone Experiment (AAOE) localized rapid reductions in total ozone, called “miniholes”, were observed by the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) within the main ozone hole. Evolving too rapidly to be the result of chemical destruction, miniholes must be the result of atmospheric transport. An important question then is “Do miniholes represent large-scale transport of ozone poor air into the vortex?” In this paper we examine the genesis and evolution of miniholes, and we demonstrate by the calculation of air parcel trajectories that miniholes are not the result of irreversible transport of ozone-poor air into the polar vortex. We show instead that minihole genesis can be attributed, in large part, to synoptic-scale tropospherically forced reversible advection (both horizontal and vertical) of low-ozone air below the level of the main ozone depletion, resulting from the poleward penetration of an anticyclone below the main vortex. We then examine the implications of the disturbed flows associated with minihole formation. Employing differential infrared absorption laser (DIAL) data, Stratospheric Measurement (SAM) II retrievals, and United Kingdom Meteorological Office (UKMO) global analysis fields and trajectories, we highlight two aspects of minihole formation, which have important implications for both theories of photochemical ozone destruction and vortex isolation. We conclude that tropospheric forcing which reduces the ozone column through advection also forces the formation of Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSC)s (type I and II) throughout a substantial depth of atmosphere, resulting in a large portion of the air in the vortex being exposed to heterogeneous chemistry as it passes through individual quasi-stationary PSC regions. Finally we conclude that synoptic-scale transport associated with these events can lead to the exchange of vortex air with air from lower latitudes. The lower limit on the mass exchange over the period of ozone depletion is estimated to be 4% of the total depleted mass, with large uncertainties.”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JD094iD09p11641/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

    “The large-scale ozone distribution over the northern hemisphere undergoes strong fluctuations each winter on timescales of up to a few weeks. This is closely linked to changes in the stratospheric polar vortex, whose shape, intensity and location vary with time. Elliptical diagnostic parameters provide an empirical description of the daily character of the polar vortex. These parameters are used as an objective measure to define two characteristic wintertime vortex displacements, towards northern Europe and Canada, respectively. The large-scale structures in both the stratosphere and troposphere and the 3D ozone structures are determined for both vortex displacement scenarios. A linear ozone transport model shows that the contribution of horizontal ozone advection dominates locally in the middle stratosphere. Nevertheless, the largest contribution is due to vertical advection around the ozone layer maximum. The findings are in agreement with an EOF analysis which reveals significant general modes of ozone variability linked to polar vortex displacement and to phase-shifted large-scale tropospheric waves. When baroclinic waves travel through the regions of vortex-related ozone reduction, the combined effect is to produce transient synoptic-scale areas of exceptionally low ozone; namely dynamically induced strong ozone mini-holes.”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0889.2000.00128.x/abstract

    “A case study and statistical evaluations provide evidence that so-called ozone mini-hole events over Europe, where a rapid drop of total ozone is followed by complete recovery after a few days, are due to the northeastward motion of patches of air with low total ozone content. These patches appear to originate in subtropical latitudes. They correlate well with minima of potential vorticity near the tropopause. Contour dynamics is invoked to explain some basic features of the deformation and northward motion of the mini-holes as well as the related large-scale flow structures.”

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01029827

    “The 2002 southern hemisphere winter was marked by unusually large wave activity, culminating with an unprecedented major warming in late September. This led to an ∼250 DU increase in column ozone near the pole as measured by the Polar Ozone and Aerosol Measurement (POAM) III instrument. POAM measurements of unusually high ozone mixing ratio throughout most of the stratosphere resulted primarily from air from outside the polar vortex being transported to the POAM measurement latitude. In the altitude region where chemical ozone loss from chlorine catalyzed chemistry occurs (below 600 K potential temperature) the 2002 ozone loss was similar to previous years up to the time of the major warming. The ozone loss diminished after this time (about 1 week earlier than usual), resulting in up to 20% less chemical ozone loss within the vortex than in previous winters. This corresponds to partial column ozone values below 600 K inside the polar vortex that were ∼25 DU larger in 2002 than in previous years.”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL016899/abstract

    Can you admit that, “all the scientists who study the phenomenon” do not agree with your view that ozone “depletion” is cause by anthropogenic CFCs?

    You appear to have a phobia about chemistry

    No, I have a phobia about BS and the anthropogenic CFC Ozone “Hole” narrative has BS written all over it, i.e.:

    Time – Feb 17, 1992

    “What does it mean to redefine one’s relationship to the sky? What will it do to our children’s outlook on life we have to teach them to be afraid to look up?

    –Senator Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

    The world now knows that danger is shining through the sky. The evidence is overwhelming that the earth’s stratospheric ozone layer–our shield against the sun’s hazardous ultraviolet rays–is being eaten away by man-made chemicals far faster than any scientist had predicted. No longer is the threat just to our future; the threat is here and now. Ground zero is not just the South Pole anymore; ozone zone holes could soon open over heavily populated regions in the northern hemisphere as well as the southern. This unprecedented assault on the planet’s life-support system could have horrendous long-term effects on human health, animal life, the plants that support the food chain and just about every other strand that makes up the delicate web of nature. And it is too late to prevent the damage, which will worsen for years to come. The best the world can hope for is to stabilize ozone loss soon after the turn of the century.

    If any doubters remain, their ranks dwindled last week. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, along with scientists from several institutions, announced startling findings from atmospheric studies done by a modified spy-plane and an orbiting satellite. As the two craft crossed the northern skies last month, they discovered record-high concentrations of chlorine monoxide (CIO), a chemical by-product of the chlorofluoro-carbons (CFCs) known to be the chief agents of ozone destruction.

    Although the results were preliminary, they were so disturbing that NASA went public a month earlier than planned, well before the investigation could be completed. Previous studies had already shown that ozone levels have declined 4% to 8% over the northern hemisphere in the past decade. But the latest data imply that the ozone layer over some regions, including the northernmost parts of the U.S., Canada, Europe and Russia, could be temporarily depleted in the late winter and early spring by as much as 40%. That would be almost as bad as the 50% ozone loss recorded over Antarctica. If a huge northern ozone hole does not in fact open up in 1992, it could easily do so a year or two later. Says Michael Kurylo, NASA’s manager of upper-atmosphere research: “Everybody should be alarmed about this. It’s far worse than we thought.” http://faculty.washington.edu/djaffe/GEI/w3a.pdf

    Strong sense of Déjà vu right?…

    Totally disagree, you’re ignoring the data that you provided.

    “The data you provided goes to higher altitudes:
    Altitude min O3
    55km 2.5ppm
    50 4.0
    42 5.0
    35 8.0
    31 8.0
    23 2.0!

    It shows the same effect, there is more O3 at 50, 40 and 30 km than there is at 23km.”

    “How on earth does this describe what happens? At 31km this descending air has 8ppm and then it drops to 2.0 by 23km, how if there’s no chemistry, by your dynamical mechanism how does that happen? You are the one who is relying on magic, you’re saying that air with 8ppm of O3 descends a few km and then 3/4 of the O3 just disappears! Where does it go?”

    Again, you are just picking a moment in time, i.e. in relation to transport the ppm on October 15th, 2013 at ~ 31 km are irrelevant to the ppm on October 15th at ~ 23, and in fact the Ozone “Hole” was split, demonstrating that the polar vortex was perturbed at ~31 km, potentially allowing surrounding ozone rich air to penetrate it, i.e.:

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center

    In comparison, here is the Ozone “Hole” on September 15th, 2013 at ~ 31 km with a low of 5 ppm:

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center

    Additionally, the ozone hole on October 15th, 2013 at ~ 23 km, which is above where “ozone depletion occurs primarily”, appears to show vigorous polar vortex at this altitude with a tight gradient around the Ozone “Hole”.

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center

    Why do you think the Ozone “Hole” has the lowest concentration at it’s center?

    You continue your disingenuous behavior of removing adverbs from quotes which makes me suspect your honesty! There is a huge difference between “ozone depletion occurs primarily” and “Antarctic ozone depletion occurs”. So no NOAA is not wrong but the data provided by both of us shows that the depletion started on those occasions above 20km, that is not contradictory with the statement that it occurs primarily between 12 and 20 km since that is where most of the O3 is prior to its destruction by Cl released by the PSCs that are formed in that altitude range. In any given spring season the exact height at which these processes occur will be different.

    Where ever you need the goal posts to be to validate your bias…

    Not magic, chemistry, why do you ignore what happens at the intervening heights?
    That packet at ~55km starts off with 2.5ppm O3 it takes about a month to descend to ~50km, during that time the data shows that the O3 concentration increased to 4ppm due to photolysis reactions. Over the next month or so it descends to ~42km and O3 further increases to 5ppm, followed by a further increase in O3 (to 8 ppm) as it continues to descend through 35 km. Other than in the spring further descent leads to further increase in O3 (to ~16 ppm) between 20 and 15 km followed by a decrease in O3 to tropospheric values. This is what happened even in the spring before the advent of CFCs.

    I don’t even know how to respond to this, all the images are from the same day, i.e. October 15th, 2013. Your narrative makes no sense, i.e. “starts off”, “takes about a month” ” Over the next month”, etc.

    However in the spring that your data refers to between 31 km and 23 km the O3 concentration in that packet of air drops to 2 ppm, your mechanism has no way to account for this!

    Descending air within the vortex explains the existence of the “hole” and low pressure due to centrifugal force within the vortex explains the lowest concentrations in the center.

    The concentration of O3 in the descending packets of air increases and decreases due to chemical processes and can’t be explained without considering that chemistry.

    You haven’t provided evidence to support the need for chemistry, but as I said above, I don’t discount it as a possible minor variable in the process…

    In the spring when the air in the vicinity of the PSCs warms up and they release Cl2 and the UV light causes the photolysis to Cl and the consequent rapid depletion of the O3. The altitude range where this occurs is somewhere in the altitude range between 25 and 12 km depending on the exact altitudes of the PSCs in that spring (depends on the weather).

    Can you provide any observational evidence that this is actually occurring?

    Again your mechanism can’t explain this since it can’t explain why this process wouldn’t occur in the winter

    I don’t understand, did you mistype something in there?

    or why it would suddenly occur over that range of altitudes in such a short time.

    The Polar Vortex can descend rapidly through the lower stratosphere and transport within it parcels of air with low ozone concentrations. Have you ever seen a vortex form in your sink or a tornado touching down. How long do they take to descend?

    “in October the Dobson number drops to 111, entirely due to the changes between 23 and 10km, that is the ‘hole’”

    So all of the other “holes” aren’t holes, but the one between “23 and 10km, that is the ‘hole’”, clearly…

    As shown that is incapable of explaining what happens without the chemistry

    You have not demonstrated this, the observations can be explained by simple dynamical processes.

    other than your bias which causes you to refuse to accept any role for CFCs?

    You have not demonstrated a need for CFCs to explain the observations.

    As pointed out above you have failed to produce a workable mechanism to explain the changes in O3 concentration that are observed, hand waving about chaotic effects doesn’t cut it. The naturally occurring value would be about 300 Dobson as I’ve said before, just like it was in the 50′s and 60′s.

    Since “several studies (including Waugh and Randel 1999; Waugh et al. 1999; Karpetchko et al. 2005; Black and McDaniel 2007) have indicated a trend over the 1980s and 1990s toward a later vortex breakdown”;

    http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/waugh+polvani-PlumbFestVolume-2010.pdf

    wouldn’t one then expect lower Ozone concentrations in October?

  153. Phil. says:

    justthefactswuwt says:
    March 17, 2014 at 9:47 pm
    Phil. says: March 17, 2014 at 7:11 am

    “Clearly not, bearing in mind that you’re not very clear on what constitutes a ‘hole’.”

    I am not going to play semantics with you about the definition of a “hole” and we aren’t using the arbitrary Ozone “hole” definition I noted above. As such, excluding condensation and chemical mechanisms, do you think there would be any areas of low concentrations of Ozone, Water Vapor, Nitrogen Oxide and/or Methane within the low pressure area and descending cold air in the Polar Vortex?”

    Semantics are important since you are using an unusual definition so it’s important to be clear what you are referring to. Obviously if condensation and chemical mechanisms are excluded there would be no “areas of low concentrations of Ozone, Water Vapor, Nitrogen Oxide and/or Methane within the low pressure area and descending cold air in the Polar Vortex?” Just like there isn’t a Argon ‘hole’.
    But since those species are condensible or reactive it is pointless to speculate on what they would be otherwise!

    A CFC based Ozone “Hole” is speculation, the dynamical effects of the polar vortex can be readily observed.
    The dynamical mechanism is incapable of explaining the depletion of O3, the polar vortex is a necessary condition for the formation of the ‘hole’ but it is not sufficient, without the chemistry and UV there is no depletion. All the species that take part in the reactions and the PSCs have been observed and measured so it is not speculation.

    An appeal to consensus, it was just a matter of time. Let’s see what “all the scientists who study the phenomenon” think:

    No just that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you’re unable to explain your own data!

    You appear to ignore the parts of the cited works that contradict your own pet theory for example:
    This mechanism is unable to explain the observed decrease without addition of an additional polar cap absorber. We speculate here that the PSC’s (assumed to last longer in this colder, weaker dynamics regime) mmy provide the required additional absorption. Finally, none of these arguments presented here preclude significant chemical effects. They do, however, strongly indicate that dynamical factors have been important in shaping the observed character of the phenomenon.”
    In other words, necessary but not sufficient!
    “and that the perturbed polar stratospheric chemistry associated with the ozone hole is isolated from the rest of the stratosphere until the vortex breaks up in late spring.

    In the altitude region where chemical ozone loss from chlorine catalyzed chemistry occurs (below 600 K potential temperature) the 2002 ozone loss was similar to previous years up to the time of the major warming.

    Can you admit that, “all the scientists who study the phenomenon” do not agree with your view that ozone “depletion” is cause by anthropogenic CFCs?
    Well all the ones you cited agree that that is what causes O3 depletion in the Antarctic as I’ve shown above!

    I don’t even know how to respond to this, all the images are from the same day, i.e. October 15th, 2013. Your narrative makes no sense, i.e. “starts off”, “takes about a month” ” Over the next month”, etc.

    The citations you produced show that it takes months for the air packets to descend from ~50 km to the lower stratosphere, during that time the ozone concentration increases as shown by the data from multiple sources at multiple times. For example, the 1999 data I showed has the same profile above 25km in July as in October, your theory requires that low ozone air ‘magically’ transports through 30km without being noticed on the way!

    The data you showed from S pole sondes on March 16, 2014 at 1:11 am shows that between Sept 1 and Oct 1 (in the years since 86) the O3 concentration between 20 and 10 km drops by about 100 Dobson, yet you also cite data that states that the air descends between 0.4 and 0.9 km in that time!. How could that small amount of displacement do that? Not over single days but whole months in different years. More magic!

    The Polar Vortex can descend rapidly through the lower stratosphere and transport within it parcels of air with low ozone concentrations. Have you ever seen a vortex form in your sink or a tornado touching down. How long do they take to descend?

    The papers you cited says in the Antarctic several months, in the lower stratosphere less than 1km/month.

    “Again your mechanism can’t explain this since it can’t explain why this process wouldn’t occur in the winter”</e

    I don’t understand, did you mistype something in there?

    No I didn’t, the vortex exists in the winter yet there is no O3 depletion, that doesn’t start until sunrise, why does your mechanism not work until sunrise in the spring?

  154. Phil. says:March 18, 2014 at 6:51 am

    Semantics are important since you are using an unusual definition so it’s important to be clear what you are referring to.

    220 Dobson units is an arbitrary and unusual definition of a “hole”.

    Obviously if condensation and chemical mechanisms are excluded there would be no “areas of low concentrations of Ozone, Water Vapor, Nitrogen Oxide and/or Methane within the low pressure area and descending cold air in the Polar Vortex?”

    “Simultaneous global measurements of nitric acid (HNO3), water (H2O), chlorine monoxide (CIO), and ozone (O3) in the stratosphere have been obtained over complete annual cycles in both hemispheres by the Microwave Limb Sounder on the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite. A sizeable decrease in gas-phase HNO3 was evident in the lower stratospheric vortex over Antarctica by early June 1992, followed by a significant reduction in gas-phase H2O after mid-July. By mid-August, near the time of peak CIO, abundances of gas-phase HNO3 and H2O were extremely low. The concentrations of HNO3 and H2O over Antarctica remained depressed into November, well after temperatures in the lower stratosphere had risen above the evaporation threshold for polar stratospheric clouds, implying that denitrification and dehydration had occurred.”

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/267/5199/849.short

    Obviously you are not capable of absorbing new information. Based solely on the fact that there is a low pressure area within the polar vortex one would expect to find lower concentrations of atmospheric constituents within it.

    Just like there isn’t a Argon ‘hole’.

    I have not seen any methodical measurements of Argon concentrations within the polar vortex. Can you cite any evidence to support your supposition?

    “No just that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you’re unable to explain your own data!”

    In your prior comment it was what “all the scientists who study the phenomenon”, but since I’ve demonstrated that to be erroneous now you “require extraordinary evidence”. We should get you goal posts on wheels so that you can move them around more easily…

    You appear to ignore the parts of the cited works

    I am the one who cited and posted the parts in this thread. You could teach a course on ignoring the “parts of the cited works” that don’t fit your theory…

    The citations you produced show that it takes months for the air packets to descend from ~50 km to the lower stratosphere, during that time the ozone concentration increases as shown by the data from multiple sources at multiple times. For example, the 1999 data I showed has the same profile above 25km in July as in October, your theory requires that low ozone air ‘magically’ transports through 30km without being noticed on the way!

    It certainly wouldn’t be “noticed on the way” down by those ozonesonde balloons you cited, as the balloons burst at ~ 30 km;

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center

    and even lower during Antarctic Winter, i.e.:
    “Polar ozonesonde profiles provide a detailed vertical measurement of ozone that can be made during low sun angle and dark time periods, when satellite ozone observations are limited. However, the cold, dark winter time will reduce the altitude burst elevation of the rubber weather balloons.”

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ozwv/ozsondes/

    The data you showed from S pole sondes on March 16, 2014 at 1:11 am shows that between Sept 1 and Oct 1 (in the years since 86) the O3 concentration between 20 and 10 km drops by about 100 Dobson, yet you also cite data that states that the air descends between 0.4 and 0.9 km in that time!. How could that small amount of displacement do that? Not over single days but whole months in different years. More magic!

    You are ignoring the low pressure due to centrifugal force within the vortex. You never answered my question, “Why do you think the Ozone “Hole” has the lowest concentration at its center?”

    Here is a good example within the Northern Polar Vortex on January 30th, 2014 at ~ 23 km:

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source

    The papers you cited says in the Antarctic several months, in the lower stratosphere less than 1km/month.

    Those papers cited the movement of parcels of air, the Polar Vortex itself can form and descend more rapidly, i.e.:

    “In late winter, parcels descend less, and the polar night jet moves downward, so there is less latitudinal mixing. The degree of mixing in the lower stratosphere thus depends strongly on the position and evolution of the polar night jet.”

    http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/33809/1/94-0540.pdf

    No I didn’t, the vortex exists in the winter yet there is no O3 depletion, that doesn’t start until sunrise, why does your mechanism not work until sunrise in the spring?

    So there are decreased concentrations, just no “depletion”? At least until “polar night jet moves downward”…

    I like how you avoid difficult questions. I’ll just keep reasking them until you get around to answering them, i.e.:

    Since “several studies (including Waugh and Randel 1999; Waugh et al. 1999; Karpetchko et al. 2005; Black and McDaniel 2007) have indicated a trend over the 1980s and 1990s toward a later vortex breakdown”;

    http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/waugh+polvani-PlumbFestVolume-2010.pdf

    wouldn’t one then expect lower Antarctic Ozone concentrations in October?

  155. Phil. says:

    justthefactswuwt says:
    March 18, 2014 at 10:13 pm
    Phil. says:March 18, 2014 at 6:51 am

    “Semantics are important since you are using an unusual definition so it’s important to be clear what you are referring to.”

    220 Dobson units is an arbitrary and unusual definition of a “hole”.

    But since it’e the accepted definition in the field it was important to establish what your different terminology was.

    “Obviously if condensation and chemical mechanisms are excluded there would be no “areas of low concentrations of Ozone, Water Vapor, Nitrogen Oxide and/or Methane within the low pressure area and descending cold air in the Polar Vortex?””

    “Simultaneous global measurements of nitric acid (HNO3), water (H2O), chlorine monoxide (CIO), and ozone (O3) in the stratosphere have been obtained over complete annual cycles in both hemispheres by the Microwave Limb Sounder on the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite. A sizeable decrease in gas-phase HNO3 was evident in the lower stratospheric vortex over Antarctica by early June 1992, followed by a significant reduction in gas-phase H2O after mid-July. By mid-August, near the time of peak CIO, abundances of gas-phase HNO3 and H2O were extremely low. The concentrations of HNO3 and H2O over Antarctica remained depressed into November, well after temperatures in the lower stratosphere had risen above the evaporation threshold for polar stratospheric clouds, implying that denitrification and dehydration had occurred.”

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/267/5199/849.short

    Thank you for providing that reference, I assume you haven’t read it since it completely supports my argument and totally contradicts yours, I suggest you read it you might learn something! For example as the first sentence says: “The severe depletion of stratospheric ozone over Antarctica (1) in late winter and early spring (the so-called Antarctic ozone “hole”) is now known (2) to be caused by chlorine chemistry.”
    Also:
    “First, in the low temperatures of polar winter, HNO3 condenses to form type I nitric acid trihydrate (NAT) polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs), which provide surfaces for the heterogeneous activation of chlorine. Second, photolysis of HNO3 vapor releases nitrogen dioxide (NO2), leading to chlorine deactivation through the formation of the reservoir species chlorine nitrate (CIONO2). Type II water ice PSCs, which form if temperature drop below the frost point, can also incorporate HNO3 vapor (6, 7). Removal of gas-phase HNO3 from the lower stratosphere, either temporarily through condensation or permanently through the sedimentation of type I or type II PSC particles (denitrification), reduces the availability of NO2 and allows chlorine to remain activated.”

    Obviously you are not capable of absorbing new information. Based solely on the fact that there is a low pressure area within the polar vortex one would expect to find lower concentrations of atmospheric constituents within it.

    No one wouldn’t, just because the pressure goes down doesn’t mean that the concentration goes down, ppm is a relative measure!

    “Just like there isn’t a Argon ‘hole’.”

    I have not seen any methodical measurements of Argon concentrations within the polar vortex. Can you cite any evidence to support your supposition?

    There’s no mechanism for a reduction in Argon concentration, as the paper you cited shows the reductions in these species rely on the fact that they are condensible and reactive!

    In your prior comment it was what “all the scientists who study the phenomenon”, but since I’ve demonstrated that to be erroneous now you “require extraordinary evidence”.

    You certainly haven’t done so, as I pointed out (and you ignored) none of those citations supported your position, here are quotations from them again:
    This mechanism is unable to explain the observed decrease without addition of an additional polar cap absorber. We speculate here that the PSC’s (assumed to last longer in this colder, weaker dynamics regime) mmy provide the required additional absorption. Finally, none of these arguments presented here preclude significant chemical effects. They do, however, strongly indicate that dynamical factors have been important in shaping the observed character of the phenomenon.”
    In other words, necessary but not sufficient!
    “and that the perturbed polar stratospheric chemistry associated with the ozone hole is isolated from the rest of the stratosphere until the vortex breaks up in late spring.

    In the altitude region where chemical ozone loss from chlorine catalyzed chemistry occurs (below 600 K potential temperature) the 2002 ozone loss was similar to previous years up to the time of the major warming.

    I am the one who cited and posted the parts in this thread. You could teach a course on ignoring the “parts of the cited works” that don’t fit your theory…

    As shown above that is exactly what you have done and continue to do with all the papers cited!
    Each of those papers talks about the chemical effects and condensation yet you ignore that and even claim that the papers somehow “do not agree with your (i.e. mine) view that ozone “depletion” is cause by anthropogenic CFCs”

  156. Phil. says:

    I like how you avoid difficult questions. I’ll just keep reasking them until you get around to answering them, i.e.:

    Since “several studies (including Waugh and Randel 1999; Waugh et al. 1999; Karpetchko et al. 2005; Black and McDaniel 2007) have indicated a trend over the 1980s and 1990s toward a later vortex breakdown”;

    http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/waugh+polvani-PlumbFestVolume-2010.pdf

    wouldn’t one then expect lower Antarctic Ozone concentrations in October?

    It’s not so much a difficult question as a strange non sequitur, I assumed you’d be glad not to be embarrassed by having it brought to everyones’ attention.
    Since the ‘later vortex breakdown’ occurs in November and December I’m at a loss to understand why this might effect the O3 concentrations in October! Unless of course if you assume that the low O3 in October causes the later vortex breakdown? However that doesn’t appear to fit with your earlier remarks?

  157. Phil. says:

    justthefactswuwt says:
    March 18, 2014 at 10:13 pm
    Phil. says:March 18, 2014 at 6:51 am
    “The citations you produced show that it takes months for the air packets to descend from ~50 km to the lower stratosphere, during that time the ozone concentration increases as shown by the data from multiple sources at multiple times. For example, the 1999 data I showed has the same profile above 25km in July as in October, your theory requires that low ozone air ‘magically’ transports through 30km without being noticed on the way!”

    It certainly wouldn’t be “noticed on the way” down by those ozonesonde balloons you cited, as the balloons burst at ~ 30 km; and even lower during Antarctic Winter,

    The example you showed which burst at 30 km was in July, July is the winter, but 30-35km is adequate to show that the descending air contains a higher O3 concentration than the air below. So if your ‘magic’ air packets containing low O3 concentrations pass through 20-15 km the sondes would see them, but they don’t.

    You are ignoring the low pressure due to centrifugal force within the vortex. You never answered my question, “Why do you think the Ozone “Hole” has the lowest concentration at its center?”

    Why would you expect it to be anywhere else? Why do you think that the low pressure has anything to do with it? Low temperature perhaps because that would increase the likelihood of forming PSCs.

    Those papers cited the movement of parcels of air, the Polar Vortex itself can form and descend more rapidly,

    In the winter the Polar vortex has already descended to the altitude of ~15km and at that time and place the O3 concentration is at its annual maximum of about 16ppm. Later in the spring the O3 concentration there drops rapidly not because of the vortex but because of the return of sunlight (i.e. UV). Your mechanism contradicts this since it would expect earlier decay and no dependence on the sunlight.
    Here’s your ‘difficult question’ which you have so far avoided answering, why is the maximum O3 concentration sustained in the winter surrounded by the vortex and the O3 depletion not take place until the spring?

  158. Phil. says: March 19, 2014 at 9:04 am

    Thank you for providing that reference, I assume you haven’t read it since it completely supports my argument and totally contradicts yours, I suggest you read it you might learn something! For example as the first sentence says:

    Yes, you’ve got me, I opened the paper, randomly selected some words and posted them. Sometimes I luck out and they are actually relevant…

    “The severe depletion of stratospheric ozone over Antarctica (1) in late winter and early spring (the so-called Antarctic ozone “hole”) is now known (2) to be caused by chlorine chemistry.”

    As I’ve said now for the third time in this thread, “I don’t necessarily disagree that they “all involve reactive and condensible species.” However, similar to the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming narrative, which uses CO2 as a metaphorical boogie man to explain all manner of climatic and weather variability, the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Ozone “Hole” narrative uses CFCs to create fear and blame humans for processes that appear to be primarily natural, i.e.:

    “Three-dimensional simulations of total ozone are reported for the 1996–97 Arctic winter. The record low ozone values observed by satellite in late March are well reproduced by the chemistry-transport model. The comparison between the chemically integrated ozone and a passive tracer with identical initialization allows us to discriminate chemical changes from variations due to dynamical processes. In addition to a substantial total ozone chemical loss (60 to 120 Dobson Units), the simulation reveals an dynamically-induced reduction of ~70 DU also responsible for the ozone minimum observed in the Arctic in late March 1997.”

    http://earthref.org/ERR/17838/

    “Significant ozone loss in the Arctic Stratosphere was observed between mid February and mid March 1997, but the vortex average ozone loss rates determined in 1996/97 are lower than in 1992, 1995 and 1996. This supports the picture that the extreme low ozone values observed in 1997 can be attributed at least partly to dynamical effects. The ozone loss was mainly concentrated in the vortex core, coinciding with the lowest temperatures. A direct correlation between the determined ozone loss and temperature history of the air parcels was observed.”

    http://epic.awi.de/2864/1/Sch9999l.pdf

    No one wouldn’t, just because the pressure goes down doesn’t mean that the concentration goes down, ppm is a relative measure!

    No, Mixing ratio ppm is relative to height, but doesn’t take into account low pressure with the vortex, i.e.;

    “Mixing ratio, however, accounts for this fact that there are fewer molecules higher up, and reports the fractional composition of the air molecules everywhere. Here’s another way to think about mixing ratio: the cube we used to compute number density was rigid; it always contained 1 cubic meter of air. To compute mixing ratio, we will use an elastic balloon that always holds 1/20th of a mole of air. At the ground, this balloon will fill a volume of about one liter (10-3 m3). At 10 km, however, the balloon will have to be quite a bit larger (about 4 times as large, in fact) to contain the same number of molecules. In each case, the ozone mixing ratio will be the fractional number of the total number of “air” molecules in our balloon that are ozone molecules. If we were to fill our balloon at the ground with a mixture of one part ozone to nine parts air (an ozone mixing ratio of 0.10), seal it, then slowly carry it upward to 10 km, the balloon would expand to a volume about four times as large as it occupied at the ground. Nevertheless, the balloon would still contain exactly the same ozone mixing ratio since we’ve neither let gas into nor out of the balloon. Ozone mixing ratio is therefore said to be conserved following air parcel motion. This conservative characteristic makes mixing ratio an excellent tool for diagnosing atmospheric motion.”

    http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/~lizsmith/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_3/3_2.htm

    Just like there isn’t a Argon ‘hole’.

    “I have not seen any methodical measurements of Argon concentrations within the polar vortex. Can you cite any evidence to support your supposition?”

    There’s no mechanism for a reduction in Argon concentration, as the paper you cited shows the reductions in these species rely on the fact that they are condensible and reactive!

    Meaning no, you cannot cite any evidence to support your supposition that “there isn’t a Argon ‘hole’”…

    As shown above that is exactly what you have done and continue to do with all the papers cited!
    Each of those papers talks about the chemical effects and condensation yet you ignore that and even claim that the papers somehow “do not agree with your (i.e. mine) view that ozone “depletion” is cause by anthropogenic CFCs”

    I won’t bother repeating my statement for a 4th time. My position is that the dynamical effects of the polar vortex are a significant, and potentially the primary cause of low concentrations of ozone within the polar vortex. Your position is that “ozone “depletion” is cause by anthropogenic CFCs”. Every reference I’ve provided in this thread supports my position. Here’s another for you to ignore:

    “Current stratospheric chemical model simulations underestimate substantially the large ozone loss rates that are derived for the Arctic from ozonesondes for January of some years. Until now, no explanation for this discrepancy has been found. Here, we examine the influence of intrusions of mid-latitude air into the polar vortex on these ozone loss estimates.”

    “We have shown that intrusions of mid-latitude air into the polar vortex introduce a systematic offset of vortex average ozone mixing ratios. Estimates of ozone loss rates are influenced by this effect. In January 1992, the resulting ozone depletion rate bias due to intrusions was estimated to be about 11 to 14 ppb per day for the vortex average method. Since the large-scale intrusions reached horizontal dimensions below the Match radius, their potential influence on the Match
    results was investigated. The model simulations show that these intrusions should not influence the ozone depletion rate derived from the Match analysis, if the usual trajectory selection criteria are applied. Furthermore, it was shown for January 1992 that the published 1σ uncertainty on the basis of 19 matches is underestimated by a factor of 2 due to the sparse sampling of the
    polar vortex and the ozone variability within the polar vortex. However, even with this larger uncertainty, the published discrepancy between Match deduced ozone loss rates and those derived from model simulations cannot be explained.”

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/3/395/2003/acp-3-395-2003.pdf

  159. Phil. says: March 19, 2014 at 10:49 am

    I assumed you’d be glad not to be embarrassed by having it brought to everyones’ attention.

    There is no embarrassment in proving you wrong…

    “Since “several studies (including Waugh and Randel 1999; Waugh et al. 1999; Karpetchko et al. 2005; Black and McDaniel 2007) have indicated a trend over the 1980s and 1990s toward a later vortex breakdown”;

    http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/waugh+polvani-PlumbFestVolume-2010.pdf

    wouldn’t one then expect lower Antarctic Ozone concentrations in October?”

    Since the ‘later vortex breakdown’ occurs in November and December I’m at a loss to understand why this might effect the O3 concentrations in October!

    Seriously? Breakdown is the end of process, i.e.:

    “Towards the end of the southern winter season, planetary-scale wave events do begin to form and propagate upward into the stratosphere. These waves erode the vortex, decelerate the jet stream, warm the polar region, and increase ozone levels. While the northern polar vortex usually persists to March or April, the southern vortex persists an additional 1–2 months (November or December). In addition, temperatures remain quite cold (below 195 K) in the southern vortex to early October.”

    http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/vortex_NH.html

    “Ozone depletion over Antarctica did occur without delay, but required several days longer to deplete to the 220 DU “ozone hole” threshold. Once this threshold had been reached the ozone hole size grew very rapidly. At the same time the areas at which temperatures were below 78C (the temperature to form Polar Stratospheric Clouds) also grew to above normal levels as shown in Figure 1c. The result was that the 2008 ozone hole grew to have the fifth largest single day size. Figure 1b shows that at this same time the SH polar vortex became larger than normal. The large size of the SH polar vortex persisted through October, November and December. In fact this year the polar vortex persisted beyond any previous year back to 1979. Consequently, the area of depleted ozone below 220 DU also persisted to the latest date.”

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/winter_bulletins/sh_08/

    “However, it is clear from the TOMS data that ozone transport and especially the timing of the vortex breakdown can have a large influence on the monthly mean total ozone, especially for October and November, when the vortex breakdown usually takes place. When the vortex breakdown occurs early (late) the October mean ozone is high (low).”

    http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/213/GL013i012p01193.pdf

    Thus a trend towards toward a later vortex breakdown, i.e. greater persistence;

    Stratospheric Polar Vortices – Waugh et al.

    would involve a delay in the erosion of the vortex, deceleration of the jet stream, warming of the polar region, and increase in ozone levels”. As such, “a trend over the 1980s and 1990s toward a later vortex breakdown” would likely result in lower concentrations of ozone during October.

    Are you still “at a loss to understand why this might effect the O3 concentrations in October”? Perhaps I could draw you a picture book or put this on calender to help?…

  160. Phil. says: March 19, 2014 at 12:34 pm

    The example you showed which burst at 30 km was in July, July is the winter

    No, the example I showed is from Summit Station, Greenland, (note the label above it) which, last time I checked, is in summer during July.

    but 30-35km is adequate to show that the descending air contains a higher O3 concentration than the air below.

    You are thus incorrect here, i.e. during Antarctic winter the balloons likely burst below ~30 km.

    So if your ‘magic’ air packets containing low O3 concentrations pass through 20-15 km the sondes would see them, but they don’t.

    Again you are moving the goal posts, in your prior comment it was “your theory requires that low ozone air ‘magically’ transports through 30km without being noticed on the way!” and now you’ve lowered it to “concentrations pass through 20-15 km the sondes would see them”. I can’t even keep up…

    “You are ignoring the low pressure due to centrifugal force within the vortex. You never answered my question, “Why do you think the Ozone “Hole” has the lowest concentration at its center?”

    Why would you expect it to be anywhere else? Why do you think that the low pressure has anything to do with it?

    Because if you put ozone in a centrifuge and turned it on, you would expect an ozone “hole” to form.

    In the winter the Polar vortex has already descended to the altitude of ~15km and at that time and place the O3 concentration is at its annual maximum of about 16ppm. Later in the spring the O3 concentration there drops rapidly not because of the vortex but because of the return of sunlight (i.e. UV). Your mechanism contradicts this since it would expect earlier decay and no dependence on the sunlight.

    Here’s your ‘difficult question’ which you have so far avoided answering, why is the maximum O3 concentration sustained in the winter surrounded by the vortex and the O3 depletion not take place until the spring?

    At no point have I stated that there is “no dependence on the sunlight”, my position is that there are numerous variables included in the formation of the ozone “hole” within the polar vortex, including parcels of air with low concentrations of ozone that begin descending in March and do not arrive at their lowest altitudes until the vortex breaks up in Spring, that in “late winter, parcels descend less, and the polar night jet moves downward, so there is less latitudinal mixing”, that the centrifugal force of the polar vortex creates a low pressure area within the polar vortex and that other chemical reactions may be involved…

  161. Phil. says:

    justthefactswuwt says:
    March 19, 2014 at 7:46 pm
    Phil. says: March 19, 2014 at 9:04 am

    Thank you for providing that reference, I assume you haven’t read it since it completely supports my argument and totally contradicts yours, I suggest you read it you might learn something! For example as the first sentence says:

    Yes, you’ve got me, I opened the paper, randomly selected some words and posted them. Sometimes I luck out and they are actually relevant…

    Actually you just posted the abstract, no indication that you’d actually read it!

    “The severe depletion of stratospheric ozone over Antarctica (1) in late winter and early spring (the so-called Antarctic ozone “hole”) is now known (2) to be caused by chlorine chemistry.”

    As I’ve said now for the third time in this thread, “I don’t necessarily disagree that they “all involve reactive and condensible species.” However, similar to the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming narrative, which uses CO2 as a metaphorical boogie man to explain all manner of climatic and weather variability, the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Ozone “Hole” narrative uses CFCs to create fear and blame humans for processes that appear to be primarily natural, i.e.:

    Actually you claimed that the ozone depletion can be explained with the ‘dynamical’ model alone, it can’t. The depletion of the O3 over the poles and elsewhere is not ‘primarily natural’.

    Khwarismi:“With an isolated & poorly insolated polar vortex, you don’t need any chlorine.”

    you: Yep, if there are a physical processes that adequately explain the existence of Ozone “Holes”, there is no need for extraneous CFC based chemical processes

    Well there aren’t such processes, the Cl based chemistry is necessary.

    “No one wouldn’t, just because the pressure goes down doesn’t mean that the concentration goes down, ppm is a relative measure!”

    No, Mixing ratio ppm is relative to height, but doesn’t take into account low pressure with the vortex,
    Of course it does, as the explanation you posted shows if you change the pressure of a packet of air the concentration in ppm does not change. That you don’t even understand something as basic as this undermines your credibility wrt the rest.

    “Just like there isn’t a Argon ‘hole’.”

    “I have not seen any methodical measurements of Argon concentrations within the polar vortex. Can you cite any evidence to support your supposition?”
    There’s no mechanism for a reduction in Argon concentration, as the paper you cited shows the reductions in these species rely on the fact that they are condensible and reactive!

    Meaning no, you cannot cite any evidence to support your supposition that “there isn’t a Argon ‘hole’”…

    The measurements made to study the degree of depletion of O3 in the polar vortex use ‘passive tracers’ as comparators, these are relatively unreactive species that are collocated in the air packet with the O3 being studied. Clearly an inert gas would be an ideal ‘passive tracer’.

    I won’t bother repeating my statement for a 4th time. My position is that the dynamical effects of the polar vortex are a significant, and potentially the primary cause of low concentrations of ozone within the polar vortex. Your position is that “ozone “depletion” is cause by anthropogenic CFCs”. Every reference I’ve provided in this thread supports my position. Here’s another for you to ignore:

    As pointed out several times they don’t, they all point to chemistry as being the primary cause of the depletion of the ozone, the role of the polar vortex is to provide the isolation necessary to prevent mixing from the midlatitudes air and allow the temperatures to get low enough to form PSCs!
    Note that even your most recent one which refers to the Arctic where the situation is much less well defined has the following caveat:
    “These large January ozone loss rates seem to occur only during winters with stratospheric temperatures in January low enough to form a significant amount of PSCs.”

  162. Phil. says:

    justthefactswuwt says:
    March 19, 2014 at 8:26 pm
    Phil. says: March 19, 2014 at 10:49 am
    “Since the ‘later vortex breakdown’ occurs in November and December I’m at a loss to understand why this might effect the O3 concentrations in October!”

    Seriously? Breakdown is the end of process, i.e.:

    Yes but as your citation says:
    ” While the northern polar vortex usually persists to March or April, the southern vortex persists an additional 1–2 months (November or December). In addition, temperatures remain quite cold (below 195 K) in the southern vortex to early October.

    The persistent southern vortex has profound implications for polar ozone loss. Polar stratospheric clouds can form at temperatures below about 195 K. Chemical reactions on the surfaces of the particles that form these clouds convert chlorine compounds from inert forms into highly reactive species. As the sun rises over Antarctica in August and September, visible radiation provides the energy to drive chlorine and bromine catalytic reactions that rapidly destroy ozone. This rapid ozone destruction produces the Antarctic ozone hole.

    So the depletion is occurring while the vortex is still strong! Note that according to the citation the minimum total ozone occurred on Sept 28th that year!

    Thus a trend towards toward a later vortex breakdown, i.e. greater persistence;

    But that’s not what you said, you said:
    “wouldn’t one then expect lower Antarctic Ozone concentrations in October?”
    Which i replied to in the negative and which your reference confirms:
    “Extremely low ozone values did not persist as long as observed in some previous years, but increased such that the mean total ozone amount for the second half of October was about 150 DU.”

  163. Phil. says:

    justthefactswuwt says:
    March 19, 2014 at 9:34 pm
    Phil. says: March 19, 2014 at 12:34 pm

    “The example you showed which burst at 30 km was in July, July is the winter”

    No, the example I showed is from Summit Station, Greenland, (note the label above it) which, last time I checked, is in summer during July.

    “but 30-35km is adequate to show that the descending air contains a higher O3 concentration than the air below.”

    You are thus incorrect here, i.e. during Antarctic winter the balloons likely burst below ~30 km.

    The published sonde data indicate sufficient dat to show whether the drop in concentration is due to descending low Ozone air from higher altitudes, the data shows that it does not.

    So if your ‘magic’ air packets containing low O3 concentrations pass through 20-15 km the sondes would see them, but they don’t.

    Again you are moving the goal posts, in your prior comment it was “your theory requires that low ozone air ‘magically’ transports through 30km without being noticed on the way!” and now you’ve lowered it to “concentrations pass through 20-15 km the sondes would see them”. I can’t even keep up…

    That’s been apparent for some time, if you’d read what was written perhaps you’d do better!
    You have claimed that the depletion in the in 20-15 km range is due to air from 55km which contains ~2.5ppm O3 turning up at 20km and that is why the concentration there drops to ~2ppm. However all the data shows that the intervening air contains higher concentrations of O3 than that, so where did it hide on the way down?

    “Why would you expect it to be anywhere else? Why do you think that the low pressure has anything to do with it?”

    Because if you put ozone in a centrifuge and turned it on, you would expect an ozone “hole” to form.

    Absolutely not, don’t you know anything about gas dynamics?
    One g acceleration is not enough to separate gases at atmospheric pressure as we know from our atmosphere. The vortex in the atmosphere does not come close to even that low level, the velocity field required for separation is many orders of magnitude than could be achieved in the atmosphere.

    At no point have I stated that there is “no dependence on the sunlight”, my position is that there are numerous variables included in the formation of the ozone “hole” within the polar vortex, including parcels of air with low concentrations of ozone that begin descending in March and do not arrive at their lowest altitudes until the vortex breaks up in Spring, that in “late winter, parcels descend less, and the polar night jet moves downward, so there is less latitudinal mixing”, that the centrifugal force of the polar vortex creates a low pressure area within the polar vortex and that other chemical reactions may be involved…

    Those stealthy ‘magic’ parcels of air that descend without being seen on the way!
    And the mythical centrifugal force of the vortex.

  164. Phil. says: March 20, 2014 at 6:23 am

    Actually you just posted the abstract, no indication that you’d actually read it!

    It seems like you only made it through their intro, as their actual findings point towards significant dynamical influences, i.e.:

    “There are no MLS measurements over Antarctica from mid-September through the end of October (20). By the time southviewing resumes on 1 November, chlorine over Antarctica has been largely deactivated. However, the 03 deficit that developed in September (4, 11, 12) persists. The deficits in gas-phase HNO3 and H20 also persist, with mixing ratio values less than 6
    ppbv and less than 3 ppmv, respectively, throughout most of the vortex. Similar H20 values were measured by the UARS Halogen Occultation Experiment (HALOE) in mid-October 1992 (29). The strong PV gradient indicates that the vortex is still intact, inhibiting mixing between polar and midlatitude air. Lower stratospheric temperatures rose above the NAT PSC formation threshold the last week in September (30). The fact that gas-phase HNO3 and H20 values remain depressed long after the last PSCs would have been expected to evaporate strongly implies that irreversible removal (denitrification and dehydration) occurred at this level.”

    It implies that the polar vortex is the dog and atmospheric chemical constituents are the tail. Here are the associated images:

    Interhemispheric Differences in Polar Stratospheric HNO3, H20, C10, and 03 – Santee, et al.

    Actually you claimed that the ozone depletion can be explained with the ‘dynamical’ model alone, it can’t.

    I don’t disagree that chemical could be involved, but you have not presented any observations that cannot be explained by simple dynamical processes. If and when you can present observations that cannot be explained by dynamical processes alone, then I’ll consider what other processes might be involved.

    The depletion of the O3 over the poles and elsewhere is not ‘primarily natural’.

    Prove it…

    Well there aren’t such processes, the Cl based chemistry is necessary.

    It’s not getting any more compelling with repetition…

    Of course it does, as the explanation you posted shows if you change the pressure of a packet of air the concentration in ppm does not change. That you don’t even understand something as basic as this undermines your credibility wrt the rest.

    No, NOAA’s Ozone Mixing Ratio Algorithm is as follows (pay close attention to that second paragraph):

    “2. Data Analysis Algorithm:

    The process of SMOBA starts from the orbital information of the daily measurements of ozone mixing ratio and total column ozone that are obtained from the NOAA polar orbiting satellite, currently NOAA-14. The retrieved SBUV/2 ozone data include 19 levels of mixing ratio from 0.3 hPa to 100 hPa and total column ozone. Layer ozone amounts are also included for 12 discrete layers from the surface to ~60 km, but the vertical resolution is very coarse in the troposphere (only 2 layers).The input data are arranged along satellite orbit tracks, over the sun-lit portion of the earth. We have performed objective analysis from the orbital data to a global, 2.5 x 2.5 degree latitude-longitude grid by a commonly used successive correction method (SCM) (Daley, 1991). The output includes ozone mixing ratio at 24 pressure levels (0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.7, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50, 70, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300 hPa) where we have added the 5 levels (300, 250, 200, 150, and 0.2 hPa) to the 19 level input mixing ratio, which are derived from ozone amount data in layers 2 (256 – 128 hPa), 3 (128 – 64 hPa) and 12 (0.25 – 0.12 hPa) respectively. We also assume a uniform ozone mixing ratio from 300 hPa to 1000 hPa, derived from the ozone amount in the lowest layer (1000 – 256 hPa). The total ozone is directly from the retrieved data, which is the sum of 12 layer ozone amounts. Note that due to the different vertical resolution of the raw data, the reliability of ozone mixing ratio is best above 30 hPa, good between 100 hPa and 30 hPa, and marginal below 100 hPa. We note, however, that the lower stratospheric ozone retrievals are guided by climatology used in the ozone retrieval algorithm, and corrected by the measured layer ozone amounts. The uniform tropospheric mixing ratio also captures the main feature shown in ozone sonde measurements.

    Because the SBUV/2 algorithm is based on the sunlight absorbed and reflected by the atmosphere (including ozone), there are no data in polar night. To fill in the polar night gap, we use NOAA TOVS total ozone derived from infrared measurements as the auxiliary information. However, TOVS does not measure vertical ozone profiles. From other satellite data such as UARS MLS, CLAES, ISAMS and HALOE, we have determined that the shapes of ozone vertical profiles are similar in polar latitudes to those at high mid-latitudes. Therefore, we assume polar night ozone mixing ratio to be such that its shape is the same as that of SBUV/2 ozone at the boundary of the polar night, and the integrated polar total column ozone is equal to TOVS measurement. As will be shown, this assumption is a reasonable approximation when the polar night gap is not too large. Since TOVS total ozone is slightly different from SBUV/2 total ozone (~5% at the boundary of polar night), a linear adjustment is applied to the polar ozone so that the filled data joint smoothly at the boundary . This procedure is the so-called blended data analysis, which combines the two data sources to obtain more complete information, on the basis of physical and instrumental understanding. In operation, in case TOVS ozone is not available for any reason, we simply use extrapolation to fill in the data gap. Therefore, there are no gaps in the data analysis files.”

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/SMOBA/smoba_doc.shtml

    The measurements made to study the degree of depletion of O3 in the polar vortex use ‘passive tracers’ as comparators, these are relatively unreactive species that are collocated in the air packet with the O3 being studied. Clearly an inert gas would be an ideal ‘passive tracer’.

    Clearly, so then show us the observational evidence that “there isn’t a Argon ‘hole’”.

    As pointed out several times they don’t, they all point to chemistry as being the primary cause of the depletion of the ozone, the role of the polar vortex is to provide the isolation necessary to prevent mixing from the midlatitudes air and allow the temperatures to get low enough to form PSCs!

    That seem like progress for you, earlier you wrote that “The dynamical mechanism is incapable of explaining the depletion of O3″ and now you note that the references “all point to chemistry as being the primary cause of the depletion of the ozone”. The real question here is whether anthropogenic CFCs are the primary cause, and you certainly haven’t presented evidence to support that.

    Note that even your most recent one which refers to the Arctic where the situation is much less well defined has the following caveat:
    “These large January ozone loss rates seem to occur only during winters with stratospheric temperatures in January low enough to form a significant amount of PSCs.”

    Correlation is not causation. The reason that “stratospheric temperatures in January” get “low enough to form a significant amount of PSCs”, is that cold air, with low ozone concentrations, descends from the lower mesosphere and upper stratosphere, resulting in cold air, low ozone and Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSCs) within the ozone “hole”.

  165. Phil. says: March 20, 2014 at 7:41 am

    Yes but as your citation says:
    ” While the northern polar vortex usually persists to March or April, the southern vortex persists an additional 1–2 months (November or December). In addition, temperatures remain quite cold (below 195 K) in the southern vortex to early October.

    The persistent southern vortex has profound implications for polar ozone loss. Polar stratospheric clouds can form at temperatures below about 195 K. Chemical reactions on the surfaces of the particles that form these clouds convert chlorine compounds from inert forms into highly reactive species. As the sun rises over Antarctica in August and September, visible radiation provides the energy to drive chlorine and bromine catalytic reactions that rapidly destroy ozone. This rapid ozone destruction produces the Antarctic ozone hole.”

    Yes, the homage to CFCs shows up in many papers, as does the homage to CO2, but that does not make the claims accurate, and it certainly doesn’t make the variables primary…

    So the depletion is occurring while the vortex is still strong! Note that according to the citation the minimum total ozone occurred on Sept 28th that year!

    Thus a trend towards toward a later vortex breakdown, i.e. greater persistence;

    But that’s not what you said, you said:
    “wouldn’t one then expect lower Antarctic Ozone concentrations in October?”
    Which i replied to in the negative and which your reference confirms:

    “Extremely low ozone values did not persist as long as observed in some previous years, but increased such that the mean total ozone amount for the second half of October was about 150 DU.”

    And then it says,
    “In fact this year the polar vortex persisted beyond any previous year back to 1979. Consequently, the area of depleted ozone below 220 DU also persisted to the latest date.”

    Thus based on the arbitrary ozone “hole” definition, “the ozone hole was quite large in 2008″, i.e. “extensive ozone depletion occurred creating the fifth largest ozone hole at 25 million sq kilometers”.

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/winter_bulletins/sh_08/

    In order to help you to be less “at a loss to understand” I’ve adjusted the question to accommodate the arbitrary 220 DU ozone “hole” definition,

    Since “several studies (including Waugh and Randel 1999; Waugh et al. 1999; Karpetchko et al. 2005; Black and McDaniel 2007) have indicated a trend over the 1980s and 1990s toward a later vortex breakdown”;

    http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/waugh+polvani-PlumbFestVolume-2010.pdf

    wouldn’t one expect there to be a trend towards larger Ozone “Holes” in October?

    NASA GSFC, USA; image prepared by CSIRO Atmospheric Research – Click the pic to view at source

  166. bushbunny says:

    What are your temperatures right now. I hope it warms up for you soon.

  167. Phil. says: March 20, 2014 at 8:15 am

    The published sonde data indicate sufficient dat to show whether the drop in concentration is due to descending low Ozone air from higher altitudes, the data shows that it does not.

    Again, repeating erroneous statements doesn’t make them any more compelling. Either present some credible evidence to support your position or admit that you are wrong.

    That’s been apparent for some time, if you’d read what was written perhaps you’d do better!
    You have claimed that the depletion in the in 20-15 km range is due to air from 55km which contains ~2.5ppm O3 turning up at 20km and that is why the concentration there drops to ~2ppm. However all the data shows that the intervening air contains higher concentrations of O3 than that, so where did it hide on the way down?

    You seem to be struggling to consider multiple variables simultaneously, including parcels of air with low concentrations of ozone descending, that in “late winter, parcels descend less, and the polar night jet moves downward, so there is less latitudinal mixing”, that the centrifugal force of the polar vortex creates a low pressure area within the polar vortex and that other chemical reactions may be involved…

    Absolutely not, don’t you know anything about gas dynamics?
    One g acceleration is not enough to separate gases at atmospheric pressure as we know from our atmosphere. The vortex in the atmosphere does not come close to even that low level, the velocity field required for separation is many orders of magnitude than could be achieved in the atmosphere.

    Don’t you know anything about vorticity? “The walls of the polar vortex act as the boundaries for the extraordinary changes in chemical concentrations. Now the polar vortex can be considered a sealed chemical reactor bowl, containing a water vapor hole, a nitrogen oxide hole and an ozone hole, all occurring simultaneously (Labitzke and Kunze 2005)”

    http://books.google.com/books?id=B93SSQrcAh4C&lpg=PA283&ots=d0-uBRjmyI&dq=%22water%20vapor%20hole%22%20polar%20vortex&pg=PA283#v=onepage&q=%22water%20vapor%20hole%22%20polar%20vortex&f=false

    “The transport circulation is modified to simulate the vortex by preventing the exchange of air across the vortex boundary. The 03 distributions calculated using standard gasphase chemistry with and without this modification are shown in Figures 2a and 2b, respectively. Comparison of Figures 2a and 2b shows that modification of the circulation to eliminate transport of 03 into the vortex has the effect of increasing 03 (up to 10%) immediately outside the vortex wall and decreasing 03 (up to 20%) inside the vortex. In the following discussion the change in 03 due to the imposed 03 hole will be calculated relative to the 03 amount given in Figure 2b.”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JD094iD09p11521/abstract

    Maybe a parallel would help you to understand?

    “Structure of a Hurricane
    • In center: centrifugal force is very strong
    ƒ Divergence and sinking air
    ƒ Mostly clear skies in the eye of the hurricane”

    http://www.indiana.edu/~geog109/topics/13_severe/13-Hurricanes_nf.pdf

    “The hurricane’s center is a relatively calm, generally clear area of sinking air and light winds that usually do not exceed 15 mph (24 km/h) and is typically 20-40 miles (32-64 km) across. An eye will usually develop when the maximum sustained wind speeds go above 74 mph (119 km/h) and is the calmest part of the storm.

    But why does an eye form? The cause of eye formation is still not fully understood. It probably has to do with the combination of “the conservation of angular momentum” and centrifugal force. The conservation of angular momentum means is objects will spin faster as they move toward the center of circulation. So air increases it speed as it heads toward the center of the tropical cyclone. One way of looking at this is watching figure skaters spin. The closer they hold their hands to the body, the faster they spin. Conversely, the farther the hands are from the body the slower they spin. In tropical cyclone, as the air moves toward the center, the speed must increase.

    However, as the speed increases, an outward-directed force, called the centrifugal force, occurs because the wind’s momentum wants to carry the wind in a straight line. Since the wind is turning about the center of the tropical cyclone, there is a pull outward. The sharper the curvature, and/or the faster the rotation, the stronger is the centrifugal force.

    Around 74 mph (119 km/h) the strong rotation of air around the cyclone balances inflow to the center, causing air to ascend about 10-20 miles (16-32 km) from the center forming the eyewall. This strong rotation also creates a vacuum of air at the center, causing some of the air flowing out the top of the eyewall to turn inward and sink to replace the loss of air mass near the center.

    Radar image of hurricane Andrew showing eye, eyewall, and spiral bands. This sinking air suppresses cloud formation, creating a pocket of generally clear air in the center. ”

    http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/tropics/tc_structure.htm

    Those stealthy ‘magic’ parcels of air that descend without being seen on the way!
    And the mythical centrifugal force of the vortex.

    Funny, I present facts and you present stealthy mythical magic. Let’s try another question you avoided, Why do you think the Ozone “Hole” has it’s lowest concentrations at its center?

    NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center

Comments are closed.