From the European Space Agency. By merging more than a decade of atmospheric data from European satellites, scientists have compiled a homogeneous long-term ozone record that allows them to monitor total ozone trends on a global scale – and the findings look promising.
Scientists merged monthly total ozone data derived from the vertically downward-looking measurements of the GOME instrument on ESA’s ERS-2 satellite, SCIAMACHY on ESA’s Envisat and GOME-2 on the European Meteorological Satellite Organization’s MetOp-A.
“We found a global slightly positive trend of ozone increase of almost 1% per decade in the total ozone from the last 14 years: a result that was confirmed by comparisons with ground-based measurements,” said Diego G. Loyola R. who worked on the project with colleagues from the German Aerospace Center (DLR).
Ozone is a protective layer found about 25 km above us mostly in the stratospheric layer of the atmosphere that acts as a sunlight filter shielding life on Earth from harmful ultraviolet rays. The thinning of this layer increases the risk of skin cancer, cataracts and harm to marine life.
The ozone layer is not distributed evenly, with more changes occurring in the upper stratosphere. By collecting data while looking sideways (limb viewing) rather than vertically downwards, instruments are able to provide highly accurate measurements of the stratosphere.
A team of scientists around Ashley Jones and Jo Urban from Sweden’s Chalmers University of Technology combined the limb measurements of US instruments SBUV, SAGE I+II and HALOE with data from OSIRIS, SMR and SCIAMACHY on the European satellites Odin and Envisat to analyse the long-term evolution of stratospheric ozone from 1979 to the present. These data show a decrease in ozone from 1979 until 1997, and a small increase since then.
“Our analysis shows that upper stratospheric ozone declines at northern and southern mid-latitudes at roughly 7% per decade during 1979–97, consistent with earlier studies based on data from satellites and ground networks. A clear statistically significant change of trend can be seen around 1997. The small increase (of 0.8–1.4% per decade) observed thereafter, from 1997 to 2008, is however not yet statistically different from a zero trend. We hope to see a significant recovery of (upper stratospheric) ozone in the next years using longer, extended satellite time-series,” Urban said.
The thinning of the ozone layer is caused by chemicals such as human-produced bromine and chlorine gases that have long lifetimes in the atmosphere. The Montreal Protocol (1987) was introduced to regulate and phase out the production of these substances. Its effect can clearly be seen in the satellite observations of ozone and these chemicals.
Using SCIAMACHY data in limb-viewing observation mode from 2002 to 2008, François Hendrick from the Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy (BIRA/IASB) and his colleagues from the University of Bremen performed a trend analysis of bromine monoxide (BrO) in the stratosphere. BrO is a highly efficient catalyst in ozone destruction. The results show a negative trend in BrO abundance in the stratosphere during this period, marking the first time a decline in stratospheric bromine has been reported from a spaceborne observation.
“The good agreement with ground-based observations at high and mid-latitudes show that SCIAMACHY limb data can be used for stratospheric BrO trend monitoring. These findings provide strong evidences that the Montreal Protocol restrictions on brominated substances have now reached the stratosphere,” Hendrick said.
Having access to these atmospheric satellite data over long periods is important for scientists to identify and analyse long-term trends and changes. In addition to monitoring ozone trends, scientists will continue to monitor ozone-depleting substances that were phased out under the Montreal Protocol but continue to linger in the atmosphere.
All of these results were presented at ESA’s five-day ‘Atmospheric Science Conference’ held in Barcelona, Spain, 7–11 September. The objective of the conference was to provide scientists and researchers with the opportunity to present up-to-date results from their atmospheric research and application projects using space-based atmospheric sensors.
The conference, with some 200 participants, included presentations that detail the current use of satellite instruments for remote sensing of trace gases in the stratosphere and troposphere, clouds and aerosols, pollution and greenhouse gas monitoring.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I saw once the concentration of chlorine gases over Antarctica during the last years (similar to the BrO series above). Was this on WUWT? Or somewhere else?
Has anyone a link?
Ozone sequestration may be expensive, but it’s the only hope to save the planet.
Johnny Honda,
Are you be thinking of this article?
ScienceDaily (July 27, 2007) — Large quantities of ozone-depleting chemicals have been discovered in the Antarctic atmosphere … The source of the halogens is natural — sea-salt in the case of bromine, and in the case of iodine, almost certainly bright orange algae that coat the underside of the sea ice around the continent. These halogens cause a substantial depletion in ozone above the ice surface … Dr Alfonso Saiz-Lopez, have confirmed that iodine oxides are widespread throughout coastal Antarctica.
John Plane, professor of atmospheric chemistry at the University of Leeds, says: “Halogens in the lowest part of the atmosphere have important impacts on ozone depletion …The research was published by Science.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070726104756.htm
The thinning of the ozone layer is caused by chemicals such as human-produced bromine and chlorine gases that have long lifetimes in the atmosphere. The Montreal Protocol (1987) was introduced to regulate and phase out the production of these substances. Its effect can clearly be seen in the satellite observations of ozone and these chemicals.
This is part of the “look what international regulation has done for the planet”
approach that will be quoted for Copenhagen.
For some different facts on Ozone check here:
http://junkscience.com/Ozone/ozone_seasonal.html
Why is there a much larger hole over the south pole rather than the north pole?
Is it because 90% of the world’s industry is in the southern hemishere, or is it because the earth is slightly pear shaped and ozone producing photons find it harder to hit oxygen at the bottom of the pear?
Assuming the corner has been turned (not yet certain), can we reliably distinguish between the effects of the Montreal Protocol and the reduced activity of the sun since cycle 23 failed to match the intensity of the previous solar cycles ?
I try to summarize, what appears to be the ESA summary of a 200 participants’ conference:
In the first graph, which spans the years 1996 to 2008, there appears to be a slight increase in ozone concentration up to 2003, then a drop. The drop lies between the two violet ellipses. I understand, various satellite data had to be merged. I also understand, this merging is considered successful.
The second graph (after the movie) shows a combination of satellite and earth bound (?) data. They span the years 1979 to 2008. They first show a decrease until 1997, then a slight increase, which, maybe, is not yet statistically significant.
On a second look, the first graph takes an average between 60 north and 60 south (no altitudes are given, possibly in the Dobson spirit an average over all altitudes?). The second graph takes the averages between 30 north and 60 north, and between 35 and 45 km altitude.
So, what do we learn? Are we still confused, but now on a very much higher level?
In any case, graph 2 very probably shows a signature of the Pinatubo eruption, in the data around 1993, and maybe, that little spike at the beginning of 1983, could that be El Chicon?
The most famous example of previous ozone depletion is the ‘hole’ over the antarctic. I once posed this question to the Max Planck Institute and Cambridge University
“How do we know that there hasn’t ALWAYS been an ‘ozone hole’ over the Antarctic-and that it varies in size?
I had lots of very learned papers cited (I don’t think they had ever considered it before) and the upshot was that they didn’t know the situation before they developed the ability to measure the hole during the late 50’s. That the depletion was partially caused by the exceptionally cold antarctic of recent yeats was also an interesting factor.
Claiming the oxone hole is repairing itself (which no doubt is a good thing) is therefore a little like clainmg the arctic ice cap is at its lowest level ever, then admitting that ‘ever’ refers to records that only go back an eyeblink in time.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/2/445.full.pdf
This compares Arctic and Antarctic depletion
Interestingly there is a reference to the cosmic ray theory/ozone hole theory as far back as 2001
http://focus.aps.org/story/v8/st8
Checking further back I then find that the scientist concerned, Qing-Bin Lu, has written a new paper stating the ozone hole is not depleting-last year was I believe the second highest on record. Whether ozone worldwide is increasing and how much it is linked to temperatures globally is another matter.
tonyb
Why do I find myself wanting to groan about yet another grafted together homogenized data series?…
And I’m now feeling skeptical about the “chemicals cause ozone depletion” thesis too. The seasonal variations are so large that seems to dominate. Solar variation in UV production (that makes O3) also varies rather much. So do we REALLY know that it isn’t just UV variations and variation in the solar wind / energetic particle impact? If not, then just exactly WHY is the N. Pole so high in ozone? Looks like a Birkeland Current signature to me.
If we get a flip of what pole the solar current lands upon, I’d bet we also get a flip of which pole has an ozone hole. Wonder if there is any way to dig that out of ocean sediments along with the magnetic polarity of the planet…
Johnny Honda,
You may also be interested in this article:
“ScienceDaily (June 26, 2008) — Large amounts of ozone — around 50% more than predicted by the world’s state-of-the-art climate models — are being destroyed in the lower atmosphere over the tropical Atlantic Ocean…
So, what’s causing this loss? Instruments developed at the University of Leeds, and stationed at the Observatory, detected the presence of the chemicals bromine and iodine oxide over the ocean for this region. These chemicals, produced by sea spray and emissions from phytoplankton (microscopic plants in the ocean), attack the ozone, breaking it down…
Professor John Plane, University of Leeds said: “This study provides a sharp reminder that to understand how the atmosphere really works, measurement and experiment are irreplaceable. The production of iodine and bromine mid-ocean implies that destruction of ozone over the oceans could be global”. ”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080625140656.htm
Isn’t the life expectancy of an ozone molecule about 30 minutes? Isn’t ozone formed by sunlight striking oxygen? Doesn’t oxygen actually absorb 97% of UV’s and ozone about 3%. Doesn’t the angle of incidence of sunlight to atmosphere have something to do with the concentration of ozone at the equator? Doesn’t the extreme cold at Antarctica stop the formation of ozone? If these things are true, then one’s altitude and latitude have a great deal more to do with UV exposure than atmospheric chemicals. And, incidentally, doesn’t the ozone hole actually cover the entire dark side of the earth? Doesn’t ozone have seasonal variations? (See Graph above.)
For the record, I oppose the introduction of chemicals into the atmosphere, lithosphere, and the hydrosphere. But as a former science teacher I feel some of this ozone hysteria is slightly over-done.
I favor getting the facts and thoughtfully considering them before running naked through the streets yelling something.
An analysis from JunkScience.com: http://junkscience.com/Ozone/ozone_seasonal.html
OT – New one from the BBC’s Richard Black, entitled ‘Millions at risk’ as deltas sink :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8266500.stm
I almost fainted when I read it, esp. coming from Mr B, it has phrases including:
“This study shows there are a host of human-induced factors that already cause deltas to sink much more rapidly than could be explained by sea level alone.”
Crikey!
This is significantly more than the global rate of sea level rise as a consequence of climate change (1.8-3.0mm per year).
Blimey!
Is he finally producing a piece of work that _doesn’t_ lay the blame of any change at the feet of CO2? Is he also acknowledging that the top end figure of sea-level rise is 3mm a year, i.e. 30cm (or about a foot) in a century (hardly much to get worked up about)?
Cheers
Mark
The Montreal Treaty is one of the backdoor solutions that Obama has figured out to limit CO2 Emissions, in case the Waxman Bill or EPA don’t deliver.
An enormous amount of spin and hog wash Alarmism has been published about the Ozone layer, eventually leading to the Montreal Treaty.
After the agreement the world was forced to use a patented alternative.
And more spin is underway as the Green Movement will use any opportunity at any price to put the green shackles on humanity.
The last words on the Ozone Layer have not been siad.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7161/full/449382a.html
Other Examples:
http://www.earth-stream.com/Earth/Continents/Australia-and-NZ/Livestock-gas-now-biggest-risk-to-ozone-layer_18_197_721_203081.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1172532/Sea-ice-Antarctic-increasing-result-ozone-hole-reveals-new-research.html
The following paper, which I managed to download awhile back, seemed to address the man-made ozone depletion nonsense very comprehensively. It seems to be available in bookform now, and it may be worth a search to see if the free pdf download is still out there. (Sorry, I’ve lost my original link)
The Holes in the Ozone Scare: Scientific Evidence that the Sky Isn’t Falling
by Rogelio A. Maduro and Ralf Schauerhammer
Mike A
I often wondered, why does a hole in the ozone layer at the poles bother us at all? It’s not as if any UV will be coming through them. In Oz, people get skin cancer, and blame it on the ‘hole in the ozone’ instead of staying in the tropical sun all day as a kid, but from there sunlight will never reach anywhere near us in Oz.
I also, as others have stated above, am getting curious as to whether we had anything to do with the ozone layer. I think now (seeing the constant BS about life-giving CO2) that scientists may have been mistaken and the records were really not long enough. Having said that, getting rid of CFCs didn’t bankrupt us like getting rid of CO2 will (just writing it makes me feel ill).
CFC Albuterol inhalers were $5.00 (generic); now illegal.
New patented HFC inhalers $65.00 (no generics).
There’s a hole alright and her name is Carol Browner.
“JER0ME (05:06:29) :
I often wondered, why does a hole in the ozone layer at the poles bother us at all?”
It was worce than that actually. CFC’s released in the NH were supposed to, magically, acculumate over the south pole. A miracle!
“It’s not as if any UV will be coming through them. In Oz, people get skin cancer, and blame it on the ‘hole in the ozone’ instead of staying in the tropical sun all day as a kid, but from there sunlight will never reach anywhere near us in Oz.”
You may wan to check up on the sunlight thing. I see it every day, but I can feel the UV.
“I also, as others have stated above, am getting curious as to whether we had anything to do with the ozone layer. I think now (seeing the constant BS about life-giving CO2) that scientists may have been mistaken and the records were really not long enough. Having said that, getting rid of CFCs didn’t bankrupt us like getting rid of CO2 will (just writing it makes me feel ill).”
But is the ozone hole decrease a direct result of the banning of CFC’s? Who knows, but I am sure someone will make claim to it.
Production of ‘ozone depleting chemicals’ did not end in 1989. In fact, it still continues today in some counties. The leaking of such chemicals into the atmosphere did not stop in 1989. We were told that such chemicals stay in the atmosphere for many decades. Therefore, the amount of man-made ‘ozone depleting chemicals’ currently in the atmosphere should be higher now than ever before, yet the ozone layer is not diminishing, but recovering.
How is this possible?
Simple…humans have little to do with the ozone layer. Our chemicals have almost no effect compared to natural variations. Time will show this to be true, but long after the damage is done through the fear mongering of the global population and the pontificating of the Montreal Protocol.
By the way, the increase in UV radiation from the ‘depletion of the ozone layer’ in the 80s and 90s, was equivalent to moving about 60 miles closer to the equator. If this was a problem, all the snowbirds who moved from New England to Florida during that time (about 1,200 miles closer to the equator) should have been instantly vaporized! Instead, the spent their time in the Florida sun working on their golf game.
The Montreal Protocol was a wonderful example of government implementing an expensive solution to no problem whatsoever.
The Montreal Protocol was about Du Pont’s patent running out…we now know the solar variation coincides with UV production. The UV hole is as big as it ever was, another wasted effort akin to the AGW thesis.
this is something i’m ignorant of altogether. However, we know in ozone, oxygen in three is involved and that chlorine is th e main catalyst. From what I understand (i’m no expert in this field) most chlorine is natural and not anthropogenic. CFC’s, containing halogen, nitrous oxide, etc we know from laboratory experiments deplete ozone. However, they all occur naturally and they are heavier than air, so left in a room, cfc’s pool on th efloor.
Athough wind currents and eddies are able to transport them upwards, the question is: Are they able to transport them to the stratosphere, and if so in sufficient quantities to cause depletion? Are there any empirical studies of anthropogenic ozone depletion?
Finally, are, or have anthropogenic sources been present in the ozone environment enough to justify what at the moment is ashort term trend?
addendum: A short term analysis
The sun creates ozone the sun destroys ozone. Look at the balance of UV A vs B for details.
Does anybody know how the two track with a roaring sun and a quite sun? Links?
The “CFC’s are destroying the ozone” was all bunk. When the actual measurements of the rates at which the CFC-derivatives were finally down last year, the rate was 10 times lower than the models had all assumed. We destroyed whole industries and made anything with a compressor more expensive and less efficient, all in the name of saving the planet.
Sound familiar?
We used to use Freon as a component cooler, contact cleaner, fire extinguisher, aerosol propellant, refrigerant, and many other things.. The 1987 service manuals for my car tell you to detect AC leaks by filling the system and looking for bubbles. The last cans I got for my car’s AC were $3, the last time I know of someone filling their Freon AC system (from recovered Freon, it’s unlawful to manufacture it) they spent over $300.
Instead of going to R134a, I went to Propane. It’s a more effective refrigerant than R134a anyway, but for obvious reasons we’re a little careful about using it in a car. After a crash, nobody wants to be surrounded by a cloud of explosive gas.
The Ozone scare was just the training exercise for the AGW scare. They learned the buttons to push, and discovered that people really will believe any steaming pile of crap as long as it’s prefixed by “Scientists Say…”