A couple of days ago we ran a piece at WUWT: Did We Really Save the Ozone Layer? In light of this press release, the question is worth pondering again.
From the NASA/GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER
Annual Antarctic ozone hole larger and formed later in 2015
The 2015 Antarctic ozone hole area was larger and formed later than in recent years, said scientists from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
On Oct. 2, 2015, the ozone hole expanded to its peak of 28.2 million square kilometers (10.9 million square miles), an area larger than the continent of North America. Throughout October, the hole remained large and set many area daily records. Unusually cold temperature and weak dynamics in the Antarctic stratosphere this year resulted in this larger ozone hole. In comparison, last year the ozone hole peaked at 24.1 million square kilometers (9.3 million square miles) on Sept. 11, 2014. Compared to the 1991-2014 period, the 2015 ozone hole average area was the fourth largest.
“While the current ozone hole is larger than in recent years, the area occupied by this year’s hole is consistent with our understanding of ozone depletion chemistry and consistent with colder than average weather conditions in Earth’s stratosphere, which help drive ozone depletion,” said Paul A. Newman, chief scientist for Earth Sciences at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
The ozone hole is a severe depletion of the ozone layer above Antarctica that was first detected in the 1980s. The Antarctic ozone hole forms and expands during the Southern Hemisphere spring (August and September) because of the high levels of chemically active forms of chlorine and bromine in the stratosphere. These chlorine- and bromine-containing molecules are largely derived from man-made chemicals that steadily increased in Earth’s atmosphere up through the early 1990s.
“This year, our balloon-borne instruments measured nearly 100 percent ozone depletion in the layer above South Pole Station, Antarctica, that was 14 to 19 kilometers (9 to 12 miles) above Earth’s surface,” said Bryan Johnson, a researcher at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado. “During September we typically see a rapid ozone decline, ending with about 95 percent depletion in that layer by October 1. This year the depletion held on an extra two weeks resulting in nearly 100 percent depletion by October 15.”
The ozone layer helps shield Earth from potentially harmful ultraviolet radiation that can cause skin cancer, cataracts, and suppress immune systems, as well as damage plants. The large size of this year’s ozone hole will likely result in increases of harmful ultraviolet rays at Earth’s surface, particularly in Antarctica and the Southern Hemisphere in the coming months.
Ozone depletion is primarily caused by man-made compounds that release chlorine and bromine gases in the stratosphere. Beginning in 1987, the internationally agreed-upon Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer has regulated these ozone-depleting compounds, such as chlorine-containing chlorofluorocarbons used in refrigerants and bromine-containing halon gases used as fire suppressants. Because of the Protocol, atmospheric levels of these ozone depleting compounds are slowly declining. The ozone hole is expected to recover back to 1980 levels in approximately 2070.
This year, scientists recorded the minimum thickness of the ozone layer at 101 Dobson units on October 4, 2015, as compared to 250-350 Dobson units during the 1960s, before the Antarctic ozone hole occurred. Dobson units are a measure of the overhead amount of atmospheric ozone.
The satellite ozone data come from the Dutch-Finnish Ozone Monitoring Instrument on NASA’s Aura satellite, launched in 2004, and the Ozone Monitoring and Profiler Suite instrument on the NASA-NOAA Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership satellite, launched in 2011. NOAA scientists at the South Pole station monitor the ozone layer above that location by using a Dobson spectrophotometer and regular ozone-sonde balloon launches that record the thickness of the ozone layer and its vertical distribution. Chlorine amounts are estimated using NOAA and NASA ground measurements and observations from the Microwave Limb Sounder aboard NASA’s Aura satellite. These satellites continue a data record dating back to the early 1970s.
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“This year, scientists recorded the minimum thickness of the ozone layer at 101 Dobson units on October 4, 2015, as compared to 250-350 Dobson units during the 1960s, before the Antarctic ozone hole occurred.”
The thinning of the Antarctic ozone layer was noticed first in the “1980s” , in comparison to the 1960s measurement. Before the 1960s measurements, are there records of the ozone density? So the question remains: In the absence of human influence, is there evidence of what the ozone layer density ought to be?
Well, er, Ipso facto, no?
Well, no : we don’t know what the ozone thickness would be without human influence. But we do know that chlorofluorocarbons manufactured by humans will influence the ozone layer. So it is virtually certain that without the Montreal agreement things would have been very much worse. We followed the “precautionary principle” in Montreal. That was very wise – because it could be done so cheaply and easily. Top marks to the governments of the world for agreeing to the Montreal protocol.
AndyE,
Just to be clear, in the 80s there were technically viable refrigerant alternatives to CFCs like R-12. Refrigeration for AC units was a developed world luxury. The conversion while costly, was nothing in comparison to the financial and health costs the CAGW Cabal wants to impose on the 3rd World to “de-carbonize.” Thus the precautionary principle application was politically viable.
Considering today’s announcement that China is abandoning its 1 Child Policy, their population growth projections over the next 20 years with demand even more energy, thus much more CO2 production. Any fossil fuel reductions by the US and Europe to meet arbitrary COP21 UNFCCC promises will be a pittance in comparison — a futile suicidal gesture.
AndyE:
You assert
“without the Montreal agreement things would have been very much worse”? Really?
Worse than what?
There is no evidence that the misnamed ‘ozone hole’ causes any harm of any kind.
The Montreal Protocol to constrain CFC emissions was an expensive and pointless waste, but unscrupulous activists used it as a model for the even more expensive Kyoto Protocol to constrain emissions of six GHGs notably CO2. Governments that went along with the Montreal Protocol should be ashamed that they inflicted it on the peoples they are supposed to represent and to protect.
Richard
RichardAssCourtney
You are still a punk ass little prick with a big narcissistic wanna be somebody personality who will never get there. You pick on innocent people and think you’re some kind of big smart ass for doing so, but you are small minded in your attacks.
To AndyE: What proof do you have that R-12 (Freon) is light enough to reach the ozone hole? Why did DuPont Chemical, which owned the expiring patent on R-12, push for the Montreal Protocol so much?
@AndyE The evidence does not correspond with your assertions. The South Pole has a much larger and growing ozone hole vs the North pole. Even though the North poles smaller ozone hole is ostensibly due to a reduction of human chlorofluorocarbons it is far more likely due to warmer temperatures.
Ironically the only way to reduce the size of the ozone hole in the south pole is with increased global warming.
Dahlquist October 30, 2015 at 3:16 am
===============
really??
mods please review for content.
Brown seaweed, marine algae, and other naturally terrestrial sources such as soil bacteria, release millions of pounds of halogenated hydrocarbons into the atmosphere every year. Including some fluorinated compounds. See here for a review.
Natural halocarbons include chloroform, methyl chloride, and methyl bromide, along with many other volatile organics and even chlorinated dioxins. All of them are released to the atmosphere.
The huge natural releases of halocarbons were not known in the 1970’s and are still not widely appreciated. Natural sources dwarf human releases. The chlorine and fluorine in the stratosphere are not a human signature.
Given a naturally warming climate, the production and release of marine and soil halocarbons may well have increased across the 20th century. Allowing that stratospheric halogens do play a role in the Antarctic ozone hole, its increased size may well be due to increased natural fluxes of halocarbons, rather than from the very much smaller human releases.
AndyE,
“– because it could be done so cheaply”
You’ve never used albuterol (beta2 agonist), Combivent (beta2 w/anticholinergic), or other aerosol bronchodilators, have you?
To AndyE and other AGW Religious Nut Cases – There was NEVER any proof (even after over 10 years of NASA Balloon Studies) that Freon Releases in the Northern Hemisphere could somehow affect the Atmosphere over the South Polar Region. After 25 years of “Freon Ban”, no Measurable reduction in the Ozone Hole has been observed. Additionally, there is no Proof that the Ozone Hole is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. The fact that a Satellite capable of measuring Ozone was launched in the 70s is no proof that the Ozone Hole first appeared when first measured. One FACT does remain, however, when the first astronauts circled the Southern Hemisphere, the comment was made “Gee – Look at all the Lightning”. See Lightning Strikes on Seawater generates free Chlorine – the best known Ozone Killer. Along with the famous Ring of Fire, which again lies mostly in the Southern Hemisphere, RATIONAL human beings can conclude that the source of the Ozone killing Chlorine over the South Pole is Naturally occurring and that the Ozone Hole has been there for Millions of years!
The real problem was that Dupont’s patent on R22 was running out, but they had the patent on the replacement RXXX. I think Dupont chairman was involved in making of the Montreal convention?
protocol
The ozone hole is where the magnetospheric foot print touches down on the earth…. Changes in the local plasma sphere causes the footprint to grow wider. This makes the ozone hole bigger. But most importantly it lets more cold air from space down onto the surface of the earth… That shows up as the a colder polar vortex that moves to lower latitudes… Activity at the poles can be tied to density fluctuations in the solar wind.
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5vyotUcwv6c/maxresdefault.jpg
So the ozone thinning/thickening is due to the sun’s activity? And the polar vortices are also tied to solar activity?
Brant Ra nice picture.
I am intrigued, got some links, please.
“But most importantly it lets more cold air from space down onto the surface of the earth”.
Low solar activity makes for larger gap in ozone?
Is this one of the missing solar feedbacks?(From the sun controls earths temperature hypothesis).
Really?
“cold air from space”? Since there is no air in space cold or warm I assume you mean that it allows more heat to be radiated into space?
clipe
Really?
Really.
michael
@ur momisugly John Robertson – October 29, 2015 at 6:32 pm
YES, absolutely it does.
Given the fact that it requires UV radiation from the Sun to create Ozone in the upper atmosphere …… and as one can easily see via the following graphic, …… UV radiation entering the atmosphere over Antarctica starts decreasing on March 21st of each year, …… and is completely void of it by June 21st and it doesn’t begin increasing again until September 22nd ….. thus Antarctica is in total “non-Ozone-generating” darkness for six (6) months of each year.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AWSYKLny6lk/TabnqLjzf8I/AAAAAAAAAXw/hbY3kfMmSl4/s1600/vernal-equinox.jpg
And don’t be fergettin that the actual reason that initiated the “fear-mongering” rhetoric about the Ozone Hole is due to the fact that DuPont’s patent for Freon production was going to expire.
I call BS on the Ozone hole. If it is caused by humans, why is the hole smaller at the North Pole?
The “Ozone destroying” chemicals are produced mostly in the Northern Hemisphere. So if they are really destroying the Ozone, why is the effect minimal at the North Pole?
However, if the Ozone hole is a result of cold temperatures (scavenging effect of descending air), then for sure it will be bigger at the South Pole.
There is less ozone depletion at the North Pole because the stratosphere is warmer there than over the South Pole. The North Pole is over ocean largely surrounded by land but slightly connected to other oceans, and the South Pole is over land surrounded by ocean. The south polar vortex is generally a single one largely centered near the pole, and the north polar vortex is often two of them in mid and late winter – one over Canada and the other over Siberia.
Thanks fredberple.
+10 Wondering the same thing. How do the CFC’s in the Northern Hemisphere where the First World nations are, find their way to the South Pole and not the North. Does Climate Change cause them to lose their way?
So, where do you store your perishables, in the oven or in the fridge? Chemicals decompose faster at higher temperatures, and chemical reactions go faster at higher temperatures. That is simple chemical kinetics, and under my point of view, trivial knowledge.
Regarding urederra’s comment that chemicals decompose faster at higher temperatures: Ozone destruction in the stratosphere requires colder temperatures in order to form polar ice cloud particles, which which are involved in the main ozone destruction process.
Uderra, that is the case if chemical destruction is the dominant mechanism. However, Ozone is naturally unstable (it takes energy to make it), so our biggest item of concern is ozone formation, which is hindered by cold. Excess cold in the Antarctic inhibits the ozone formation, and the circumpolar current reduces the amoutn of interchange with areas that do have ozone and precursors.
I have even heard supporters of the Montreal Protocol admit that the Antarctic ozone layer is naturally weak. The question is what fraction of this weakness is human-caused
the north polar vortex is often two of them in mid and late winter – one over Canada and the other over Siberia.
===================
then the earth’s magnetic field is most certainly involved in the ozone hole, because the north magnetic pole is also split into two centers. One over Canada and the other over Siberia. There is no way this is simple coincidence
chemical reactions go faster at higher temperatures
=================
again I call BS on the Ozone Hole. Since chemical reactions go faster at higher temperatures, the destruction of Ozone by human created Chlorine should be occurring faster at the North Pole, as CFC’s are broken down to release Chlorine.
But that is not what we see. The Ozone Hole is larger at the South Pole, where the very low temperatures should reduce the breakdown of CFC’s to release chlorine to destroy ozone. So the Hole cannot be the result of human produced CFC breakdown to release Cl.
Chemicals decompose faster at higher temperatures
===============
Yes, and the decomposition of CFC’s to release chlorine, which then breaks down the ozone would of course be happening faster at the North Pole where there are more CFC’s and the temperatures are higher.
So if the CFC theory of the Ozone Hole was correct, we would see a much bigger hole at the North Pole. But we don’t. So the theory that humans created the ozone hole cannot be correct.
@ur momisugly ferdberple
In regards to my comment at 3:16, 30 Oct 15, If my language offended you I apologize. I had a couple of run ins with the person addressed in my comment and have also seen him harass, demean and criticize, many other commenters on this site without any reasonable reason to do so. However, in respect for your position about my comments, I will refrain from doing so in future. If there is another run in with him, I will try to stick to less objectionable language. Thanks for your feedback, and address me rather than the mods please.
Dahlquist
Fred, I’d suggest reading up on what you are trying to refute. The claim is that CFCs are more or less well mixed, so the ozone depletion is happening everywhere. However, most places (North Pole included) have either enough ozone formation or migration to maintain a layer. Antarctica has not only low formation due to cold and no life to give precursors, but also has the strong circumpolar currents. Thus, the weakening ozone layer is greatly exacerbated.
If you note: this is an irrefutable argument because it acknowledges the formation of a natural ozone hole (or at least a weak spot) and then claims that humans make it worse effectively as an ad-hoc tack-on.
The only real way to prove it wrong is for the ozone hole to be unchanged for many years after the Montreal protocol, which is where we stand today.
If it were so easily refuted, it wouldn’t have such strong support. You have to know what they are saying before you can refute it.
urederra October 30, 2015 at 3:13 am
Donald L. Klipstein
October 29, 2015 at 9:30 pm
“There is less ozone depletion at the North Pole because the stratosphere is warmer there than over the South Pole.”
So, where do you store your perishables, in the oven or in the fridge? Chemicals decompose faster at higher temperatures, and chemical reactions go faster at higher temperatures. That is simple chemical kinetics, and under my point of view, trivial knowledge.
Simplistic knowledge and in this case wrong. Perhaps you have also heard of catalysis, which can greatly increase the rate of reactions. In the case of the destruction of O3 in the Antarctic stratosphere it occurs because there it is cold enough to form Polar Stratospheric Clouds, on the surface of which heterogeneous catalytic reactions take place producing Cl2 from the products of CFC photolysis. When the sun returns to the antarctic this Cl2 breaks down into Cl radicals which catalytically destroy the O3.
Why does the new map have pink and white at the high end of the scale?
Why are there no units on the scale for comparison?
http://climate.nasa.gov/system/news_items/main_images/885_Arctic-ozone-concentrations.jpg
There are units – it’s measured in Dobson units. I don’t know exactly what they are, but I’m sure Google will tell you.
Why are you showing a northern hemisphere map? More precise dates would be nice too.
So there is a “hole” for a few months. Then it goes back to normal by the end of November.
That is NOT Ozone getting destroyed. That is Ozone merely getting redistributed in the stratosphere because of the cold polar vortex at the south pole which sweeps the Ozone out to the 40S-60S latitudes for a period of time, before it moves back in.
When the Sun comes back, and the south polar vortex is not quite so cold anymore, the Ozone moves backs in and everything is huncky dory again.
There is no “destruction” of Ozone, it comes back. It is just a seasonal redistribution in the atmosphere which has probably been going on for the past 2.0 billion since the Ozone layer got established.
Big Hole at the peak this year, 2015.
http://exp-studies.tor.ec.gc.ca/tmp/66996122780to20150928.gif
Hole gone and normal Ozone last year by December 15, 2014.
http://exp-studies.tor.ec.gc.ca/tmp/67039122800to20141215.gif
It is a scam that they do not show how this redistribution works. People are protecting their phony baloney jobs gentlemen
The hemisphere was irrelevant – my question was about changing the scale on the map and marking it with the relevant numbers.
I have since looked at several more recent images employing an annotated scale, having white and pink to represent extraordinarily high concentrations.
It seems they have widened the scale on the map from ~150–550 Dobson Units to a range of 0–700 in recent years.Perhaps they are expecting more extreme lows and highs in the future?
Har rump for Bill Illis
Bill Illis October 29, 2015 at 6:08 pm
So there is a “hole” for a few months. Then it goes back to normal by the end of November.
That is NOT Ozone getting destroyed. That is Ozone merely getting redistributed in the stratosphere because of the cold polar vortex at the south pole which sweeps the Ozone out to the 40S-60S latitudes for a period of time, before it moves back in.
When the Sun comes back, and the south polar vortex is not quite so cold anymore, the Ozone moves backs in and everything is huncky dory again.
There is no “destruction” of Ozone, it comes back. It is just a seasonal redistribution in the atmosphere which has probably been going on for the past 2.0 billion since the Ozone layer got established.
Completely untrue Bill. Here’s a typical plot of the Ozone Hole:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/sp_profile.gif
According to Bill’s theory the air over the pole between 15-22 km altitude moves out laterally to north of the 40S parallel being replaced by air that contains no O3, where does this air come from? The air above and below that altitude range have higher concentrations of O3, Bill’s theory doesn’t explain the observations!
Where did we get the idea that the Ozone “hole” is not natural, and where did we get the idea that an ozone “hole” over the antarctic is a bad thing?
To clarify the question, there are neither a lot of plants nor people in Antarctica so why does the lower amount of ozone there matter?
And seeing as it happens during the winter, what possible difference could it make? Not like there is any UV that needs to be blocked.
It happens in the spring, not the winter, when the sunlight returns to the antarctic.
Ask Dr. Google about the “dupont freon conspiracy”.
Lots of hits. Believe what you wish. (Most do.)
Heh. Answered. Held in moderation. Must have spealt something rwong.
You used the “C” word. Using the “F” word (an accusation of deception) will also automatically kick you into moderation.
It is a bad thing because without the ozone layer UV light can reach Earth surface and produce DNA damage.
However, the idea that is not natural is hippie science. Or, as one of my teachers used to say, eco-city science. City dwellers with little contact with nature tend to believe that everything natural is good and everything artificial is bad. And since the ozone hole is something bad, then it cannot be natural, it must be man-made.
A good advice for them is to go out and hug a polar bear.
DUH, …… without the UV radiation there would be no ozone layer.
Any attempt to destroy the ozone layer would be futile because the incoming UV radiation would re-create it faster than you could destroy it. And every “flash” of Lightning would assist in the re-creation of the ozone layer.
But it occurs during the time that the Antarctic is completely dark! So no ionizing radiation from the sun is falling on it. It goes back to normal as sunlight is returned.
IIRC – 1- UV light/rays travel in a straight line.
– 2 – is called an “equinox,” and it happens twice every year, around March 21 and Sept. 21. Just what is an equinox, and why does it occur?
The Earth moves in two different ways. First, the planet spins on its polar axis — a line through the north and south poles — once every 24 hours, causing the alternation of day and night. Secondly, it moves in its orbit around the sun once every 365.25 days, causing the annual cycle of seasons. The equinox occurs when these two motions intersect.
http://www.space.com/22852-fall-equinox-earth-seasons-explained.html
So UV rays traveling from the sun in straight lines will not directly strike the ground at the South Pole on Sept 11th, 10 days before it is even parallel.
It never ends with these alarmists. I’m seriously considering never reading an article from an alarmist origin again unless I’m depressed and need a serious laugh.
Stratospheric cooling is a prediction of AGW. I hadn’t noticed a trend in 20 years. Is it starting?
But – I thought the Monreal protocol was supposed to have this all sorted 😉
No doubt about it. We’re doomed.
The large size of this year’s ozone hole will likely result in increases of harmful ultraviolet rays at Earth’s surface, particularly in Antarctica and the Southern Hemisphere in the coming months.
Really? If you were standing in Antarctica, the sun would appear to be low on the horizon even at high noon. Draw the picture. The sun’s rays would pass through a whole whack of atmosphere where ozone is quite normal before they ever got to the land directly below the ozone hole.
Or has our orbit changed recently and I missed it? Instead of a 23 degree axial tilt the earth now lies completely on its side and the sun shines directly on the poles? Did I miss a news release?
UV at the tropics is ??five?? times the Antarctic UV when there’s an Antarctic “ozone hole”. And there are a few more people there too.
The Montreal Protocol was 28 years ago and was supposed to close the “ozone hole” starting within ??20?? years. How long before the mainstream admit that they got it wrong? [I can answer that question : it will be at about the same time that they admit that they have got climate wrong.]
Oh, but don’t you know there were cheaters, so the clock on the effectiveness of the treaty doesn’t start until the protocol people say it does sometime long after everyone is dead. (/sarc)
Well ahem, you see, Karl and Peterson realized they had this problem you see. and then they remembered this guy called Archimedes and this lever thing…….
michael 😀
OK, I see how they could do it with levers. But where do they stand? And do they have to flip the earth back and forth, end to end, every day, so that day/night gets simulated? Seems like quite a bit of work to me.
Would be easier to just come up with some super lubricant to grease the continents with so they could be slid around the planet as needed instead of flipping it end to end all the time. They’ve probably gotten pretty good at it, nobody even notices it. Well, there was that congressman who got all wound up about Guam tipping over but they’ve improved the technology since then, and painted him as mad.
I replaced the central air on the house a few years ago, and the new unit was at least twice as big as the old one because of the Montreal Protocol requirement to fix the Ozone hole. So how could the ozone hole possibly be worse when the fix has been in for all these years. There must be something wrong with NASA’s report.
Its called stimulating the economy, or in this case beating a dead horse. The hope is that new rules and regulations regarding carbon taxation will produce a new wave of pencil paper pushing and computer data crunching government departments across the globe that will munch a holes in the North pole’s Ozone layer.
The new unit (probably the condenser) has its larger size reducing the temperature of the condensing refrigerant, which reduces the temperature difference between the refrigerant in the condenser and the refrigerant in the evaporator. This reduces the amount of work that the compressor has to do. I hope you do not complain about the reduction of your electric bill.
Steve Case – the Montreal Protocol wasn’t supposed to “fix” the ozone hole. I always thought that the chlorofluorocarbons act as a catalyst only so they hang around for a long time. We only ever hoped for the hole not getting much bigger – and that has turned out to be successful. The chlorofluorocarbons will disappear over time, I believe : wasn’t their half life about 50 years?
Tropical lower stratosphere temerature certainly has declined. However, it most certainly is not a steady decline that can be attrubuted to CFCs, or AGW.
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/uah_tls_365d.png
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=902
The typically lame attempts of climatologists to draw straight lines through any data they can find is simply evidence of their preconceived conviction that everything that happens is a result of steadily increasing GHG forcing and any deviation from a straight line is just climate “noise”.
They either deliberately or subconsciously ignore any other information that may be contained in the data.
“Tropical lower stratosphere temerature certainly has declined. However, it most certainly is not a steady decline that can be attrubuted to CFCs, or AGW.”
Agree that it cannot be attributed to CFCs, but even the warmists agree that ingreased “greenhouse” or IR-active gases such as CO2 will increase radiative surface area and radiative cooling to space throughout the stratosphere up to the thermosphere/edge of space. The Arrhenius AGW theory, however, fails when claiming that CO2 is a cooling agent of the stratosphere through thermosphere, but magically changes to a warming agent in the troposphere.
Good points. Some of us think good old CO2, on net, cools even in the troposphere. No magic for me
However I can just see a new campaign championing saving the emperor penguins from deadly ozone! Save those cute little guys! Destroy your SUV!
The odd thing is that this year has such a large ozone “hole” when the UN has been trumpting all year about how ozone was on the mend and it was all thanks thier hugely successful Montreal Protocol.
Looks like NASA have just declared that one BS.
The timing of this release makes it sound like Karl et al revisited.
No, every October this so called “ozone hole” which is nothing more than a diminished ozone zone, drifts round to Australia and NZ as the Antarctican winter wind systems abate. Alarmist observers look up, detect it and declare doom. Ozone is formed by warm rising air meetiing descending UV rays from the sun. As there is less of both at the poles there is less production of ozone there than around the equator. And if the ozone hole is now worse, it says nought for all the years of restrictions we have been legislatively enslaved by. Ozone is one part per three million in the atmosphere – not something to ever worry about.
Speaking of holes, did anyone watch the Republican debate last night, moderated by CNBC…One of them being Ms. Becky Quick? She has this patented bitchy, sultry attitude and appearance, punctuated by her practiced, low, growly, sexxxy voice. I was wondering if anyone else imagined if her real self would emerge if a sneaky, slippery, unexpected index finger poked her in her butt while she was putting on her show?
OT and OTT.
So the conclusion has to be that CFCs , vastly reduced in atmospheric concentrations since around 2000 were not the cause of the ozone hole in the first place.
Yet another case of false attribution for an nobel warriers to chalk up.
Except for the fact that concentrations haven’t decreased noticeably, only emissions have. CFCs are particularly long-lived in the atmosphere and decay slowly.
The ozone hole is, unsurprisingly, more related to concentrations than emissions.
The ozone hole is, unsurprisingly, more related to concentrations than emissions.
=====================
And yet….
I didn’t see you raise any objections to those claims.
In fact, weather patterns not only predict the shape, scale and size of the depletion region much better than CFC concentrations ever will, but they also predict a depletion region surrounded by an accretion region, like mountains surrounding a valley:
The CFC hypothesis ignores the mountains because it can’t explain them
Here’s how the weather pattern model works, from NASA, annotated by me for step-by-step clarity.
==============================
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.”
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/miniholes_NH.html
==============================
&
==============================
The [Antarctic] 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
==============================
Remove isolation of the polar vortex from the equation, and the ozone “hole,” now continuously replenished with enriched air from surrounding regions, will disappear, along with the ozone enriched accretion region surrounding it. But remove CFCs, and the same depletion/accretion pattern will continue to emerge indefinitely, with seasonal variations in the size and shape of the polar vortex explaining and matching–exactly–any seasonal variations in the size and shape of the depletion/accretion regions, hence:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0210/ozone020924_toms_big.jpg
Bipolar vortex with ozone “holes”, NASA 2002
Can you explain the accretion region, Zeke?
Interesting take on this zeke….An intelligent person, looking at the same data may ask:
1) We eliminated this shite cf12 30 yrs ago…and it’s still there…barely moved a scotch…persistent bastard.
2) In spite of it’s concentration remaining virtually steady for 30yrs, We both “healed” the ozone layer, and we once again have a very large ozone hole during thIs same 30 yr period. With cfc 12 staying at a steady level, how does that fit into your hypothesis.
This happens because the original hypothesis was shite. In the old days where there was integrity in science, fair thinking people would be re-thinking their opinion. Nowadays….not so much.
Steve Squires of the Rover Missions might just be the last NASA scientist left with any integrity….after listening to Zeke and the boys, I immediately go watch the Nova reruns, it makes me feel good.
Zeke says, “The ozone hole is, unsurprisingly, more related to concentrations than emissions.”
Nah, the alleged “very-long-lived” CFCs peaked within only 6 years after the 1989 Montreal Protocol and have declined since, yet the ozone hole just hit a “record high,” demonstrating that Mother Nature/solar activity controls the natural & seasonal ozone hole, not Mann-made CFCs.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/files/2015/10/cfcs-1024×643.png
@Zeke
The only thing I see growing in your graph is HFC-134a, which is not CFC, it is HFC. Those were supposed to be safe, right?
Khwarizmi October 29, 2015 at 6:27 pm
“…accretion region…”
A little OT, but thank you for jogging my memory. That is the concept I was looking for when I was explaining why I thought the OCO2 satellite might actually see elevated CO2 surrounding major sink activity.
Nice illustration. But, I think I come down on Zeke’s side, here.
Zeke Hausfather October 29, 2015 at 5:43 pm
Your graph looks pretty clear to me. Once CFC production was reduced, the concentration leveled off, and is slowly declining. HFC production started up, and its concentration is growing.
I do not see a plausible way in which one could doubt that human production of these chemicals cannot make their way to the stratosphere.
So, we have a situation sort of like the “pause” in global temperatures. We properly excoriate the alarmists when they make “hottest year ever” claims, even though there is no steady increase, and the new records are statistical noise. Let’s not make the same error in reverse here. CFC levels have plateaued. Any decrease is quite marginal. This year’s record setting hole is statistical noise.
The hypothesis that CFCs were responsible for the growth in the hole cannot be falsified until and unless the overall level declines significantly, while the hole persists.
cannotcan makethe orange line almost mimics the dupont share price, ye ,ye. correlation not necessarily causation 😉
Nice illustration. But, I think I come down on Zeke’s side, here.
============================
I’m glad you liked the topographical representation, Bartemis.
But how do you explain the mountains of evidence surrounding the ozone valley?
If the circumpolar accretion region is merely an artifact of the intense Antarctic vortex generating an isolating weather pattern in winter, temporarily blocking the poleward flow of ozone-rich air, would not a polar depletion region naturally ensue without the aid of CFCs?
In other words, are not CFCs a redundant entity in a deficient explanation?
How did all my heavier than air CFC emissions of 30+ years ago cross the equator then rise to the stratosphere and remain there all this time? It just has to be OZ’s fault–maybe the penguins.
No it is unicorn flagellation that cause the ozone hole. I certain that as good as the CFC guess (I won’t call the CFC guess even a hypothesis let alone a theory.).
Just a matter of wind speed and turbulence. Once in the atmosphere, they stay there forever until broken by UV light…
Sahara sand, many times heavier than air are deposited here at 3,000 km distance if the wind is from the south. Lookup: Brownian motion, which is for small particles, but CFC molecules are even much smaller…
Just thinking Al Gore needs to be honored with a unit…so what should a Gore measure?
The weight of scat deposited per hectare by 100 prime Angus bulls per month.
That’s a good start…the more Gore, the more the garden grows…
A Gore would be the measure of applied adjustment to historical data required to produce the mandatory hockey stick resemblance.
A gore is a unit of measurement used in one of the softer “sciences” such as psychology and sociology to measure the amount of fear one has of man overcrowding the planet – as in agoraphobia.
Search using ‘ gore point highway ‘
There is a large fine if you drive your car into the “gore zone.”
The units of always being wrong. Goes from 0 at always right to 50 at half right and half wrong, and 100 at always wrong. The value at always wrong is 100 algores and the value at always right is 0 algores.
Algor a medical term meaning deathly cold. or a ‘sensation of coldness’ ‘chill’
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/algor
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/algor
The ozone hole is where the magnetospheric foot print touches down on the earth…. Changes in the local plasma sphere causes the footprint to grow wider. This makes the ozone hole bigger. But most importantly it lets more cold air from space down onto the surface of the earth…
Cold air from space hey?
“Hole Theory”? The New York Times needs to know there’s a man-made “cold hole” sucking frigid air down from outer space: “Frozen penguins everywhere!”
“cold air from space”
I wish you hadn’t phrased it quite like that. And twice now. There is no air in space.
The second “cold air from space” was a joke. Now that I think about it though, I’m still concerned about the penguins. What if the Antarctic suck-hole brings space-junk crashing down on the poor little critters? “Run, squatty fellows! Run!”
Sorry, should have made my comment more clear. I was referring to Brant Ra’s comments.
Citations please.
More air from the top of the air column?/Stratosphere?.. Top of atmosphere.
But my interest is how you figure more air is exchanged top to bottom by expanding the whole?
Evidence? Do polar vortex increase in magnitude during low solar activity(electromagnetic activity)?
A Fore unit would have to be a unit measure of bullshit.
I love that….150 gores.
Sorry Gore unit
BYTI 8>)
I will be rude:
How many “days” have we humans known there is ozone and better yet days of knowledge of a “ozone hole” over the Antarctic? What if it is better that there be an even bigger hole. What if it is just one more natural cycle of the on going chaos that rules the universe outside the known rules of man.
Yet all these doom day predictions of what it means if it gets larger or smaller now that we know any thing at all about this ozone hole. Man kind has itself set way to high on the important list.
“Man kind has itself set way to high”…
Or DuPont has. See my earlier reply on this. (My nym is easy to search for. So far, ‘myNym’ only yields hits on my posts, and those answering to my posts. Enjoy.)
I didn’t find that rude.
… which sounds right for the Arctic/Antarctic see-saw
beginning to send the Antarctic colder, as the Arctic
had started warming right about then.
Polar ozone holes seem to form when temperature drops
below a certain threshold. One formed in the Arctic recently
when temps dropped dramatically in a recent Northern winter.
(2008 or 2009? Can’t remember …)
Are they really a measure of human influence?
Or are they natural?
The Arctic/Antarctic or Polar See-Saw is one pole’s temperature
going in the opposite direction from the other Pole. When the
Arctic warms the Antarctic chills and vice versa.
What research is possible to estimate ozone coverage prior to the “discovery” of the “whole”.?
What proxy might show up in sea bottom or southern land masses to indicate thinner or thicker ozone layer?
My suspicion is we have accomplished nothing, as likely there was nothing to save us from.
Because there is no data prior to the panic and given the behaviour of similar agencies since, I doubt.
One hell of a way to guarantee your government job, create a panic every generation , then strive to prevent the imaginary doom.
I do believe that government is basically a morality play, which we pay actors to perform for the edification of the fools and bandits born to each generation.
Most people do not need to be told stealing,lying and parasitism are not beneficial to civilization.
Seems like we need new actors.
To know what causes ozone depletion is intangible. Could it be the consumption oxygen by combustion? Stratospheric combustion?
“This year, scientists recorded the minimum thickness of the ozone layer at 101 Dobson units on October 4, 2015”
At least they didn’t call it “unprecedented.” They measured 101 DU this year compared to 192 DU in 1980. But it was 101 DU or lower in 1991, 1994, 1997-2001, 2003, 2006, 2008, 2009, & 2011. There were another 8 years when it measured under 110. So one third of the yearly measurements since 1980 were at or below this year’s value of 101 DU. And over half of the measurements were below 110 DU. The last 25 years have been fairly low measurements. Have they been able to identify a single negative impact from the ozone hole during that time? Or is this turning out to be just another figment of environmentalists’ overactive imaginations?
Meanwhile, CNBC – part of Hillary’s media – is running an article about the worst El Nino ever.
“The strongest El Nino on record is expected to drench the southern half of United States this fall and winter, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA).”
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/29/el-nino-some-companies-to-benefit-while-others-get-hit.html
lol
Bill Illis
October 29, 2015 at 6:08 pm
“So there is a “hole” for a few months. Then it goes back to normal by the end of November.
That is NOT Ozone getting destroyed. That is Ozone merely getting redistributed in the stratosphere because of the cold polar vortex at the south pole which sweeps the Ozone out to the 40S-60S latitudes for a period of time, before it moves back in.”
Exactly Bill. I’ve been harping on the fact that there is a thickening of the Ozone surrounding the hole like the roll back of a turtleneck sweater. Your comment, is the first one I’ve seen of this phenomenon other than my many cries from the wildnerness. I wonder if a skilled graphical wizard could quantify the mass of ozone by the color code and prove that the total mass of ozone is essentially unchanged. My other observation that has had tepid interest is that regular O2 is the only magnetic gas in the atmosphere and all other gases are diamagnetic – they are pushed away from a magnetic field. This pulling in of O2 supported by the pushing away of all other atmospheric gases I will accept is a modest force but if I’m qualitatively correct, there should also be a CO2 hole, an N2 hole, a methane hole, a noble gas hole and even NOx, etc holes coincident with the ozone hole. Anybody got data on the other gases? No one has been interested over the past several years of my rant in checking this out. The arctic is much more modified by weather from the south that would mix and reduce the effect.
Amazing that there is no speculative thought given that the orthodoxy of CFCs and the ozone depletion theory may be being falsified. Also, I haven’t been able to find data on the magnetic susceptibility of CFCs – I suspect that it is also diamagnetic, pushed away from magnetic fields.
But …
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2): The oxidation state of N is +4. This exists in equilibrium between NO2 and N2O4. NO2 is a brown, paramagnetic gas (ie. it contains an unpaired electron), and N2O4 is a colourless, diamagnetic solid (ie. it contains only paired electrons).
http://www.everyscience.com/Chemistry/Inorganic/Group_15/Nitrogen/d.1321.php
That said, it would be interesting to know if the force of the magnetic field on the various gasses will move them against normal diffusion and, even more so, wind. I’m doubting it pretty mightily.
jim2
October 29, 2015 at 8:24 pm
Jim, fair enough, I’m sure the effect is small (but so, too is the amount of O3 itself) but it would be interesting to know what the gases and their ratios are that replace the O3. It seems to me a polar vortex shouldn’t be so selective – does it reduce the other gases by the same proportion. As an interesting side note, we have an example of a NASA experiment that doesn’t answer this question. When you design an experiment with an all encompassing bias, you leave out critical data collection.
“Like” (think fb)
Gary –
From CRC Handbook (69th ed): CCl2F2 is diamagnetic, as expected (p E-134). NO, NO2 are paramagnetic; N2O3, N2O4 are diamagnetic (p E-130). Both O2 and O3 are paramagnetic.
You raise a good question-at-large: Are other trace gases known not to follow the ozone pattern?
I developed an experimental magnetic design for separating rare earth element (REE) compound precipitants in solution with results that ranged from spectacular (diamagnetic La and Th) to disappointing variant combinations of several REE combined compounds. The problem is controlling pH on a fine scale to promote individual REE compound precipitates. I have an extensive file on magnetic susceptibility and it lists O3 as diamagnetic. I will check out what I have on the NOx species – I wasn’t searching for these in particular but got them along with what I was looking for. Here is one I just found now stating that Ozone is diamagnetic:
https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-chemistry-textbook/nonmetallic-elements-21/oxygen-153/ozone-594-3612/
Wikipedia , too: “The molecule was later proven to have a bent structure and to be diamagnetic.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone
The initial experiment done by Becquerel stated it was strongly paramagnetic and some of the sources may still use this study.
@ur momisugly Gary Pearse – October 29, 2015 at 8:02 pm
We know that “Nature abhors a vacuum”, so tell me, …. where in ell does Nature get the “ozone free” air that the cold polar vortex sucks back in to create the “ozone hole”?