NOTE: It has been pointed out to me by an email from a regular WUWT reader that some people get a different conclusion from the headline other than what I was thinking of. So, for those who didn’t read the paper fully to the conclusion, I offer this clarification:
In the conclusions of the paper here (PDF) there is this:
Thus, the above facts (1)–(5) force one to conclude that the CR-driven electron-induced reaction is the dominant mechanism for causing the polar O3 hole.
(CR stands for Cosmic Rays) The above conclusion is what I based my title on. The titled also merited a “may be” caveat until replication of the work is done by another scientist. Anyone reaching a different conclusion, such as one of CFC’s not being involved, is erroneous. Cosmic Rays are drivers (or some may say a catalyst) of a complex reaction involving CFC’s, resulting in ozone ‘O3‘ depletion, and that is what is referred to in the conclusion.
While I had considered changing the headline to make it clearer for those who don’t read scientific papers completely, substituting the word “responsible” with “a Catalyst”, doing so would break web links already in place, and that would appear to some that the article had been removed, when that would not be the case.
Comments are normally closed automatically after 60 days, but I’m opening them up again for a short period since there has been a change to the article.
– Anthony
The Antarctic Ozone Hole is said to be caused only by Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s). According to this new study, perhaps not. (h/t to John F. Hultquist)
Here is a new paper of interest just published in Physical Review Letters.
Correlation between Cosmic Rays and Ozone Depletion
Q.-B. Lu
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada
Abstract:
This Letter reports reliable satellite data in the period of 1980–2007 covering two full 11-yr cosmic ray (CR) cycles, clearly showing the correlation between CRs and ozone depletion, especially the polar ozone loss (hole) over Antarctica. The results provide strong evidence of the physical mechanism that the CR driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules plays the dominant role in causing the ozone hole. Moreover, this mechanism predicts one of the severest ozone losses in 2008–2009 and probably another large hole around 2019–2020, according to the 11-yr CR cycle.
Excerpts from the paper:
There is interest in studying the effects of galactic cosmic rays (CRs) on Earth’s climate and environment, particularly on global cloud cover in low atmosphere (3 km) and ozone depletion in the stratosphere. The former has led to a different scenario for global warming, while the latter has provided an unrecognized mechanism for the formation of the O3 hole. The discovery of the CR-cloud correlation by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen has motivated the experiments to investigate the physical mechanism for the correlation. In contrast, the CR-driven electron reaction mechanism for O3 depletion was first unexpectedly revealed from laboratory measurements by Lu and Madey. Then the evidence of the correlation between CRs, chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) dissociation, and O3 loss was found from satellite data by Lu and Sanche: the O3 hole is exactly located in the polar stratosphere and at the altitude of 18 km where the CR ionization shows a maximum.
CRs are the only electron source in the stratosphere, while halogen(Cl, Br)-containing molecules are long known to have extremely large cross sections of dissociative attachments of low-energy electrons. The latter reaction will be greatly enhanced when halogenated molecules are adsorbed or buried at the surfaces of polar molecular ice, relevant to polar stratospheric cloud (PSC) ice in the winter polar stratosphere, as firstly discovered by Lu and Madey and subsequently confirmed by others in experiments and theoretical calculations.
Read the complete paper here (PDF)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Look, we don’t need fancy explanations for the ozone hole; Ozone is produced by sunlightin the stratosphere: In the Antarctic winter there is no sunlight so Ozone is no longer created; the remaining Ozone, being naturally unstable, has a half life and steadily diminishes until the sun comes back.
That’s it! No need for CFCs no need for cosmic rays. If this is too simple tell me what I’m missing.
But, but, Montreal 1972 assured us that the evil CFC’s were to blame and if we got rid of them, then all would be allright. Tell us it ain’t so.
Seriously, this is not good news for those who live under the Ozone Hole or its extremities.
KimW (12:19:46) :
Too bad we have phased out or are in the process of phasing out some of the best, most compressible synthetic refrigerants ever developed….and all due to the Montreal protocol. Think about the billions of dollars wasted on upgrading refrigeration equipment and retrofitting of refrigerants…and for what?
Maybe we can avoid this type of boondoggle with AGW…somehow I doubt it though.
“KimW (12:19:46) :
But, but, Montreal 1972 assured us that the evil CFC’s were to blame ”
You tell them Kim. Those crazy econuts were spreading scares about the ozone hole DECADES before it was discovered……
Anthony
How do we contact you with potential stories as I forwarded this to you a week ago?
My main comment would be that the explanation is plausible, but we have no way of knowing whether or not there has always been an ozone hole, and if the current one is larger or smaller than normal.
Judging by the correspondence I have had with various top scientists in this field they don’t really know either, as they have been focused so much on using data that assumes the exisring theory is correct. Sound familiar?
Whatever happened to the good old scientific belief encapsulated in the motto of the Royal Society ‘Nobody’s word is final.’
Tonyb
KimW (12:19:46) :
One more thing….it’s interesting that Dr. Dobson discovered the ozone hole in 1956–long before the advent of ubiquitous mechanical refrigeration and air conditioning. He invented the ground-based instrument to measure atmospheric ozone and even discovered the seasonal variation in ozone concentrations, now called “recovery”.
http://www.junkscience.com/Ozone/ozone_seasonal.html
Wow. All those wasted fridges………………
KimW (12:19:46) :
Seriously, this is not good news for those who live under the Ozone Hole or its extremities.
Not worth worrying about …..Only a bunch of New Zealanders…. 😉
Taking into account CFC’ s molecular weight I would accept that they could make a hole but in the ground!
No more “hollywood science”, please!
Isn’t the artice claiming that cosmic rays enhance the CFC caused loss to the ozone? “CR driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules plays the dominant role in causing the ozone
hole.”.
Maybe “Galactic Cosmic Ray Enhancement of CFC Caused Damage May Be Responsible For The Antarctic Ozone Hole” would be a better title.
I’m 60 years old.
I was in primary school in 1954.
I remember my primary school headmistress teaching our class that Ozone was produced by the action of SUNLIGHT (ie (she meant) solar radiation) on our atmosphere.
No surprise, then, that ozone depletion is observed at the polar extremities.
She must have got this from somewhere!!!!
Does nobody else have any similar recollection?
Ah yes…. and the correlation to surface temperature is:
Quote:
At the same time, less lower stratospheric ozone would be available to trap outgoing infrared radiation from the surface and the lower atmosphere. The net effect is calculated to be a slight cooling at the surface, but a more significant cooling in the lower stratosphere. Scientists remain uncertain about the impact this changing stratospheric temperature profile will have.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/the-science-of-ozone.html
Would this be another climate feedback related to cosmic rays, where increased rays result in cooler temperatures??
Another feedback not in current climate models?
Being a simple-and humble-red neck, I am confused.
The abstract seems to imply that the CGRs cause the various halogenated hydrocarbons (refrigerants) to disassociate and the free radicals cause the loss of the ozone.
That would mean that both the CGRs and halogenated hydrocarbons are required.
Am I missing something??
Regards,
Steamboat Jack
About 20 years ago I heard a rumor, and I believe it is a rumor but I think it is an interesting one. It goes like this. DuPont’s CFC patent was going to expire and they were going to losing a large market share of the refrigerant market. Along comes the hole in the ozone theory and they covertly jump on it while patenting the next refrigerant R22 or R32 or something like that. It all worked out for them. Didn’t help me much when I was work on my boats fish hold refrigerant which was R12. But that’s just a rumor too. I didn’t buy the CFC/Ozone connect then just like I don’t buy the AGW theory now. The science is way to young for either one to start making trillion dollars mistakes.
I have always had a few problems with this whole CFC/Ozone thing. One problem was that it was said it would take some 50 years for the impact of Montreal to be realized because it took that long for the CFCs to get up to that level.
There are two problems with that. One is that it would suppose, then, that the ozone hole noticed in the 1980’s was the result of CFCs released in the 1930’s of which as far as I know, there weren’t any. Secondly, air is transported from ground level to 20Km altitude each and every day by storms. A tropical cyclone takes an absolutely fantastic amount of air to very high altitude. Other storms do as well. The notion that it takes air that long to get to that altitude always seems somewhat preposterous to me. Anything that gets well-mixed into the lower atmosphere will be transported up to about 20km fairly easily by storms.
Then there is this whole notion that the CFC source of ozone degradation was the result of a calculation that apparently amplified the impact of the CFCs by an order of magnitude. I can’t find that item right now, but I believe it was published in the past couple of years.
More interestingly is the discovery that volcanoes inject something like 5 times as much chlorine into the upper atmosphere as exists in CFCs. Are there any volcanoes near the polar regions? (rhetorical question, really).
There should be a way to test all of this. Ozone holes are apparently largest when the circumpolar jet is exceptionally strong keeping air better “sequestered” at the poles and prevented from mixing with the rest of the atmosphere. When the jet is strong, the upper atmosphere at the poles is exceptionally strong. So we should see a correlation between temperature and size of the ozone depletion area.
In long periods of increased cosmic rays, the impact should be felt at both poles if these rays are a prime candidate for ozone destruction. So what I would expect to see is something that looks like this:
During periods of about equal cosmic ray counts, the size of the ozone hole should track well with temperature of the upper atmosphere in winter. Periods of increased cosmic rays would show an increase in ozone destruction and a larger depletion area than is experienced during periods with equal temperatures but lower cosmic ray counts. So lets say you have 10 years. 5 of them low cosmic ray counts and 5 high. In years with low counts, size of the depletion area should be about the same in years with about the same temperatures aloft. In years with higher ray counts, the depletion area would increase over the area for low count years with the same temperature aloft.
“When the jet is strong, the upper atmosphere at the poles is exceptionally strong. ”
OOps, meant “When the jet is strong, the upper atmosphere at the poles is exceptionally *cold*”
Well I didn’t think it was my armpit spray.
I want another halon fire extinguisher. The best on the market for cockpit blazes. How many lives have been lost due to another misguided ‘it must be us’ theory?
The Canadian Discovery channel program “Daily Planet” had an item just yesterday that claimed the ozone hole is gone! It was a very short piece with no explanations other than that we can “pat ourselves on the back” for such a feat.
I’ll see if I can find a link.
Two observations: First, It was more justifiable to ban Freon (etc.) back in the 70s that it is to penalize CO2 now, because the cost to do so was relatively low, the danger was great, and the margin of error, timewise, was short.
Second: I’ve suspected that Hansen (and others) modeled their CO2=warming thesis on the template of the Freon=ozone hole template. If a natural cause is discovered for the ozone hole, that discovery will, or should, reverse the parallel-controversy precedent that they and many in the public are relying on to bolster the credibility of the CAGW position.
Third, if it turns out, a few years down the road, that the Freon connection is thoroughly debunked, this can be used by our side as a stick with which to belabor the alarmists.
“David Ermer (13:11:07) :
Maybe “Galactic Cosmic Ray Enhancement of CFC Caused Damage May Be Responsible For The Antarctic Ozone Hole” would be a better title.”
Hats off to you sir. You managed to read the article before going in all guns blazing. 🙂
KimW,
as Barrie Sellers mentioned, the ozone hole exists during the antarctic winter and early spring, which is also when the sun is mostly below the horizon. In the areas where there is overlap, that is, the sun does get above the horizon and the ozone hole is still above them, the direct sunlight is coming in at a low angle where it is still being filtered by atmosphere outside of the hole. The increased UV is oversold.
Here are some pictures to hopefully clarify what I am trying to get across:
http://www.jamesriser.com/JamesRiser/Science/seasons/seasons2.htm
No wonder I am so brown this summer living in NZ!
“”” TonyB (12:36:07) :
Anthony
How do we contact you with potential stories as I forwarded this to you a week ago?
My main comment would be that the explanation is plausible, but we have no way of knowing whether or not there has always been an ozone hole, and if the current one is larger or smaller than normal. “””
There have always been ozone holes; they just weren’t called that until somebody called them that, after looking and finding one; “lookie there I do believe that’s an ozone hole !”
One can find numeraous references in typically Optical texts and handbooks in chapters dealing with “light sources” and in particular “natural light sources” such as the sun (moon and stars)
Back in the 40s-50s there was much work done on the ground level and high altitude solar spectrum. For one, the Air Force was keenly interested in the high altitude EM radiation hazards to pilots (or plane crews).
It is quite common to find references to the sun as a light source with notations that the sun is known to have seasonal and random variations in “color Temperature”, as een from the ground; and these references often cite a belief in variations in the high energy (UV) end of the solar spectrum as a proximate cause for solar color temperature variations; and the seasonal effect is a distinct clue to variations in ground level solar radiation due to appearance and disappearnace of ozone holes.
Now actually, if you look at the air mass one solar spectrum you can see that ozone is credited with taking a big chunk out of the peak of the solar spectrum evn out to the blue green region; so clearly ozone variations can be and are a cause of seasonal changes in apparent color temperature of the sun as a natural light source.
It was likely sometime during the IGY in 1957/58 when somebody; most likely a Frenchman (ofr unknown reasons); had nothing better to do with his time or his research grant so he looked for an ozone hole and there it was; and he named it on the spot; and of course imbued it with a legacy that said no such thing ever existed before.
But I’m believer in the sun maketh, and the sun taketh away.
Solar UV of 200 nm or less (vaccuum UV) breaks up molecular Oxygen (can’t recall the eV requirement for that cleavage).
Atomic Oxygen is too reactive to hang around long enough to get two of them back together (remember that in the cleavage, the two oxygen atoms take off in opposite directions in CM space; and they never see each other again. So each O latches onto the next O2 it encounters, and makes a threesome out of it; which however is not too stable but a damn side more stable than O is
I don’t think you can ever not have ozone if you have O2 and solar vaccuum UV. If you have both of those at any altitude, you will get atomic O and it will not put up with that conditions so you will get ozone; CFCs or no.
George
But absent sunlight; expect to get an ozone hole.
Didn’t someone get a Nobel prize for elucidating the role of ice crystals in ozone depletion? Was that just a hypothesis and this new finding is of a more dominant cause? That would be news. Reporters should be calling up their friendly scientific news source for quotes.
A BIG issue on the Ozone Hole is, why isn’t there one over the North Pole????
We have the same amount of time without direct sunlight. We have pretty much the same atmospheric constituents during the summers. So why no northern hole??
The theory I find reasonable is the southern circumpolar circulation. That is, due to the land sea configuration at the south pole there are winds which DO tend to partition the atmospheric exchange so the loss of ozone can not be replaced with ozone from areas with direct sunlight. This is obviously not a feature of the north pole.
This post adds another possibility. North and South Pole opposite polarities. Do the magnetic fields bias the GCR’s, or even solar particles, to add to this situation??