Maybe it is because the major catalyst isn’t CFC’s after all? See this story:
Galactic Cosmic Rays May Be Responsible For The Antarctic Ozone Hole
In the conclusions of the paper here (PDF) there is this:
Thus, the above facts (1)–(5) force one to conclude that the CR[Cosmic Ray]-driven electron-induced reaction is the dominant mechanism for causing the polar O3 hole.
From NOAA’s Earth Systems Research Laboratory:
Antarctic Ozone Hole Persists, At Least for Awhile
Major success in reducing ozone-depleting substances may not pay off in the Antarctic for several more years
August in Antarctica means the Sun starts rising over the horizon again, following four months of darkness. For NOAA Corps officer Nick Morgan (GMD), stationed at the South Pole, the month also marks the moment when he begins measuring ozone in earnest.
For most of the year, Morgan and his colleagues launch giant plastic balloons into the air about weekly. Tethered to the balloons are instruments that take ozone readings up to about 18 miles high.
Then, in the Antarctic spring (August through October), sunlight-sparked chemical reactions begin eating away at ozone. Scientists start making measurements more often, and by October, Morgan or his colleagues are outside in minus 80°F temperatures about every other day. Morgan and other scientists around the world are watching those data carefully, looking for evidence that the Antarctic ozone hole is beginning to heal after decades of hurt.
There’s scant evidence yet, from the balloon-borne instrumnets or others on the ground and on satellites: At the end of September, total ozone was at its annual low of 122 Dobson units. Typical fall, winter, and summertime levels are 250-300 Dobson units. The worst-of-the-year ozone levels have averaged 108 during the last 24 years.
It will be difficult to establish a clear-cut recovery trend in Antarctic ozone levels because seasonal cycles and other variable natural factors—from the temperature of the atmosphere to the stability of atmospheric layers—can make ozone levels dip and soar from one day to another, says NOAA ESRL scientist Bryan Johnson. But the time is coming, probably within a few decades, when ozone depletion will no longer be observed each spring, Johnson said.
“And within the next decade or so,” Johnson says, “observations are anticipated to begin showing reduced severity of the ozone hole.”
As soon as the Sun crosses the horizon again during the Antarctic spring, sunlight-triggered chemical reactions involving air pollutants begin destroying ozone in a region of the atmosphere called the stratosphere. The stratospheric ozone layer protects Earth from some damaging ultraviolet radiation, so an ozone hole means more of that radiation can hit the surface and trigger elevated rates of skin cancer and crop damage.
In the Antarctic, the ingredients for ozone depletion line up perfectly around September: Sunlight, low temperatures in the stratosphere, polar stratospheric clouds that help catalyze the destructive chemistry, and the continued presence of ozone-depleting chemicals, many of them released decades ago. Most years, those conditions ease by early December, and the hole closes.
“The ozone hole has taken somewhat of a back seat in the public eye,” Morgan wrote in a recent blog post from the South Pole. “And maybe that is a sign of success.”
Levels of most ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere have declined significantly since the 1987 Montreal Protocol was signed, he noted.
That international treaty initiated the phasing out of chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), then used widely in refrigeration, as solvents, and in aerosol spray cans. The chemicals were breaking down in the stratosphere, and reactive parts—chlorine and bromine atoms—triggered ozone destruction, when conditions are ripe (sunlight, polar stratospheric clouds, cold temperatures).
International scientists contributing to the quadrennial 2010 Ozone Assessment— including many NOAA scientists—have calculated that although global stratospheric ozone may recover by midcentury, the ozone hole in the Antarctic will likely persist longer.
More: http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/spo_oz/ and http://icestories.exploratorium.edu/dispatches/south-pole-ozonesonde-lau… (video).
Regarding sunburn in Australia/New Zealand, I thought the cause was simply high sunshine hours combined with a significantly clearer atmosphere than the northern hemisphere (hence higher UV light levels). The clarity of the atmosphere (relative to Europe) is obvious to the naked eye, on a clear winter’s day in the mountains you can see up to 100 miles; once on a flight I took from Christchurch to Queenstown, the visibility was described by the pilot as “virtually unlimited” – I remember watching the wave formations in the Tasman Sea from the other side of the Southern Alps. Sorry, no references for all this.
There is a small flower growing export industry in Southland (southernmost province of the South Island, NZ) based I believe on the higher UV light levels there, which are good for helping bright flower colours form (anecdote from a flower farmer I met).
All the best.
I believe another issue about why the ‘hole’ is more pronouncd over the Antarctic than the Arctic is because it is colder at altitude over the Antarctic than the Arctic during the local winter & that extra level of coldness allows the “…polar stratospheric clouds that help catalyze the destructive chemistry” to form & the O3 is reduced untill the temperatures climb with the Anarctic spring, the Polar Vortex collapses & the ‘hole’ is filled. In the Arctic, the temperatures don’t fall that low & the polar stratospheric clouds are not as wide-spread so there is less additional O3 loss.
I would think if the temperatures were less & the polar stratospheric clouds did not form as widespread, the Antarctic Ozone hole would behave as the Arctic hole does…much smaller & less pronounced.
Just my thoughts,
Jeff
Pat Frank says:
November 12, 2010 at 12:04 pm
The EU guys say that the great majority of scientists should revisit Electricity. Amen.
I remember reading a paper a few years ago, written by the very same scientists who said the ozone hole was created by excess CFC’s in the atmosphere created by evil man. In their paper they state their whole theory was wrong, that real world experiments had proved it in error.
When asked the magic question, so why didn’t you know this before, didn’t you run the experiments? They said no they had not, because they didn’t think they had to, it was so obvious. And it turned out to not be so obvious, but the need the hide the truth did.
And if you ask, why DDT is banned when that allows millions to be killed by malaria each year, well we thought …. The whole DDT thing was a lie.
Did you ever stop and think, why lights have to be off at the beach house to prevent the turtles from being attracted to the lights, and then you ask yourself what do the turtles do on the West Coast of Florida where the moon comes up over the land … Huh. Yep, turtles go to the sound of the sea, not the moonlight. Why would turtles be that stupid. Turtles know the moon goes round the earth.
So many lies, so little time.
Mike of FTG says:
November 12, 2010 at 11:52 am
You will have to read all WUWT posts on the subject of Cosmic Rays and the like.
But Cosmic Rays are not PHANTOM RAYS or DEATH RAYS, 90% of them are HYDROGEN (A METAL BTW) nucleii. Don’t forget that energy turns into “touchable mass” and vice-versa.
What began as a pure and pristine wave can hit you head and break it 🙂
Nature it is not divided in separate compartments OUR STUBBORN HEADS ARE!, because of a delusional “education”.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/42018959/Unified-Field-Explained-9
Aussies and New Zelanders are largely descended from British/Scotch/Irish stock with more red hair, freckles, and the kind of pale skin that burns and does not tan.
That lack of melanin lets Brits and other Northern Europeans still get enough Vitamin D from the low annual sun exposure in their native environment.
Transport them to a more subtropical location with fewer clouds and lots of sun exposure and there will be a high indicence of actinic keratosis and squamous cell carcinoma. Atmospheric ozone is not that relevant to these genetic risks.
Pat Frank says:
November 12, 2010 at 12:04 pm
“”Gene, diamagnetic means ozone doesn’t have any net internal magnetic field. That means an external magnetic field won’t impart any net momentum to ozone molecules.
Oxygen is paramagnetic, however. But Earth’s magnetic field is only 0.5 Gauss, which is nowhere near strong enough to overcome the thermal kinetic energy of oxygen gas molecules.””
As a result the magnetic reluctance of Ozone is three orders of magnitude lower than O2, when exposed to UV radiation or magnetic fields O2 converts to O3 to conserve energy of motion, the conversion is continual as is the break down to the base O2 state.
It is the total combined effects of the residual magnetic field flux, and the level of UV light intensity’s annual variation that creates and regulates the size, position, and duration of the hole, that forms in the absence of bright UV sunlight.
As the solar magnetic fields and the Earth’s magnetic fields decrease together the size and duration of the hole increases. I would bet that the hole is there any time the magnetic fields and UV levels are this low in the whole past history / future of the earth.
Meanwhile R-22 now costs a fortune as it is being phased out. If I need to service any of the central A/C systems, I will have to upgrade to R-410a. That means ripping out the existing condenser unit and replacing all the thermal expansion valves. Major $$$ and hassle.
It appears it will all be for nothing….
Of course I’m just a weird a** little troll, albeit very dandy indeed . . .
Isn’t it just a little odd that them ozone holes (and do not try and say ozone hole to an over sexual male teenager unless your stomach can stomach the laughter) just happen to be located over the two areas on earth of absolutely no vegetation, i.e. oxygen producing, growth what so ever? Maybe it’s magnetics or because the places are “so far removed from the Sol our sun”, but still, it’s kind of fits in with the correlation that you need oxygen producing vegetation beneath an ozone layer.
How do all the heavier-than air ozone-depleting chemicals actually get up that high?
The law of unintended consequences applies.
I think that the ozone hole was probably always there. But humans in the last decades have become far too hygiene conscious. The use of showers has increased in Australia, and the antipodes (as in Europe) over those decades. But using soap and detergents actually washes away UV protection that the skin naturally secretes and the vitamin D that is also secreted that increases the body’s defenses against UV damage.
See the following disconnected references:
Sebum comes from the sebaceous glands in the skin.. which increase in number and output in response to UV exposure..
http://www.jdsjournal.com/article/S0923-1811(03)00003-3/abstract
Abstract
Background: Although an understanding of the photobiology of the skin has been extensively advanced recently, the effect of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on sebaceous glands is not well known. Objective: In this study, we examined the direct effect of UV radiation on cultured sebocytes from hamsters in vitro experimental system. Moreover, we examined whether UV-induced peroxidation of skin surface lipids may affect barrier function of horney layer. Methods: We irradiated cultured sebocytes from hamsters, which have similar biological characteristics to the human sebocytes, with UV radiation. Moreover, transepidermal water loss (TEWL) was examined after topical application of cholesterol or triglyceride (TG) and UV exposures on the back of hamsters. Results: The number of sebocytes were increased significantly (120–140%) after 4 days as compared with the non-irradiated controls. Lipid production in sebocytes was also increased on day 7 in an irradiation-dependent manner up to 4.1 times of the pre-irradiated level. When UVB was irradiated to TG- or cholesterol-applied skin at the minimum ear-swelling dose, TEWL increased twice or more as compared with UVB irradiation to unapplied sites. When in vitro-irradiated TG, in vitro-irradiated cholesterol, TG-peroxide (TG-OOH), and cholesterol-peroxide (CHO-OOH) were applied to the skin, TEWL increased significantly. Conclusion: These results suggest that UVB may directly activate the functions of the sebaceous gland in vivo to produce increased amounts of sebum, which may undergo peroxidation by UV light and damage the barrier functions of the skin.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k543140295250111/
Abstract
Dolichol, the polyisoprenoid lipid found in all eukaryotic cells and suggested to represent a biomarker of aging, is inserted into cell membranes, also in tissues exposed to light such as the skin. A general question about its physiological role is whether dolichol may play the role of a natural barrier for the noxious components of solar radiation. In order to clarify this point, we established that dolichol is a component of human sebum and we performed an “in vitro” study of the effects of UV radiation on the spectral properties of dolichol in isopropanol. Our data clearly show that, following UV irradiation, the optical absorption spectrum of dolichol undergoes remarkable modifications below 400nm: a significant, strongly dose-dependent, increase of the optical density around 320 nm and a minor, very slightly dose-dependent, raise of the absorbance at 250 nm. On the contrary, UV irradiation causes only minor changes in HPLC profiles and the formation of photooxidative products can be considered negligible in our experimental conditions. These results suggest that dolichol can be considered an innate, unusually efficient and promising UV screen for skin protection.
and finally a little video
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/05/12/shocking-update-sunshine-can-actually-decrease-your-vitamin-d-levels.aspx
Saying just that – do NOT shower and wash with soap for 48 hours after sun exposure.
The reason that you have to ‘slap slop slip’ in Australia is that you have been using soap to wash off the natural protection and vitamins that the skin has secreted.
This could explain why ‘in the old days’ deck hands and sheep shearers did not get many skin cancers whereas todays well washed workers do.
“The only real protection against skin cancer is a brown skin. For example skin cancer is almost unkown outside of the fair skinned races and amongst these races it is least common amongst trades with the greatest exposure to the sun, such as farmers and roofers.
The only way one can get a brown skin is by exposure to UVB (the medium wavelength version).”
I can assure you, this is rot. Skin cancer is not “unknown” in dark skinned races. The NZ Maori and Pacific Islanders get it, though obviously at a lower rate thanks to their genetic advantage.
I have lived in New Zealand, New Caledonia and France for extended periods. The difference the sun makes in NZ is extraordinary. Just walking out of the airport ones notices how much sharper the light is.
I cannot spend an hour outside working with my shirt off here. I would be fried to the point of being sick. Yet in beautifully clear New Caledonia it was not a major issue. In Europe I wouldn’t even have given it a thought.
My parents had a black African visit once. They warned him to cover up in the sun, but he scoffed, thinking his skin made him immune. A sunburnt black man is quite a sight.
The anomaly of NZ and Australia having high skin cancer and yet high protective regimes is no anomaly. The sun burns so fast that people get burnt even taking care (I have been). Not everyone, especially young people, take anywhere enough care. Many people live outdoor lifestyles of a sort very rarely seen in Europe or North America and have very high exposures.
On the face of it the obvious reason for the high skin cancer in NZ is the high danger from UV from the sun, not some ass-backwards explanation that says we get high skin cancer because we take extra care. That NZ has higher rates than Australia follows the pattern, since the UV rate here is much higher.
This could explain why ‘in the old days’ deck hands and sheep shearers did not get many skin cancers whereas todays well washed workers do.
Do you actually believe this nonsense?
The reason people get more skin cancers is that we live longer, we diagnose them better, and we do stupid things like sunbathe. In the past workers consistently wore brimmed hats and long sleeved shirts – their skin just didn’t see the sun.
We get more of every sort of cancer BTW, for much the same reasons.
Regardless, the sun in NZ has got worse in living memory. It just has. People down here, even sceptics, get no traction on this issue because they make themselves look flat-earther even trying. Only people not living here dispute it.
I wish people would read the original scientific papers. This is the second time that the cosmic rays and ozone layer paper has been mentioned here. The first was in March 2009 and Mr Watts had to put a caveat in the discussion – it is at the top of the link that is provided this time. Please read it. Please read the original paper.
Ozone depletion chemistry requires several factors involving climate conditions, sunlight, ice particles in the stratosphere, CFC’s and molecules derived from CFC’s. It requires a mechanism for breaking up chlorine containing molecules to produce chlorine radicals. The usual mechanism proposed for this last step involves UV light and the main ozone depletion occurs at the end on the polar winter when UV returns and the reactions start. Lu’s paper was suggesting that cosmic rays could take the place of UV in the breakup step. He was NOT suggesting that cosmic rays replace CFC’s in the process. He has also since 2009 been shown to be wrong – see this http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v103/i22/e228501
Here’s an old web page from 1998 explaining the basics http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/part3.html
They had it right then – the fundamentals have not changed. The chemistry is all observed and measured in the stratosphere.
It is courious that DuPont Freon patent expired at the same time concern over the hole escalated.
I have lived in both Singapore and Brunei. In Brunei I get sunburnt easily, in Singapore I don’t. The difference: similar latitude and climate, but Singapore’s atmosphere is hazy, Brunei’s is not. Nothing to do with ozone or UV light in themselves.
Fact, the effect of O3 “hole” is at the Poles
Fact, the earths magnetic poles are concentrated at the Poles
Fact, the earth spins on this axis about the poles
Fact, O3 is a polarized molecule and is highly reactive.
Conclusion the LACK of OR Concentration of O3 COULD be directly related to the Ionic atmosphere effects of the Solar wind in periods of Solar activity ie Sunspots …. and the interaction with the earths magnetic field.
And I want new Halon fire extinguishers back!
“John T says:
November 12, 2010 at 10:12 am
‘Severian says:
November 12, 2010 at 8:26 am
I want my cheap Freon back!’
I want my son’s cheap albuterol inhaler back.”
The amount of ozone and nitrogen oxides that lightning creates is greater than those created by human activities in that level of the atmosphere, the study shows.
Zhang’s research is published in the current Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and the study was supported by NASA and the Texas Air Research Center.
Each year, about 77 million lightning bolts strike the United States, and worldwide lightning flashes occur about 60 times per second.
This generates the ozone.
So, if AGW, Peak Oil, and now CFC-related ozone depletion have all been thoroughly debunked…what am I going to lie awake at night worrying about??
I know – I will worry about politicians who still believe in AGW, PO and CFCs 🙂
And windfarms.
Why is there a small hole over the north pole? Most of the world’s CFCs are produced in the northern hemisphere?
Ozone needs solar UV radiation to be produced. The closer to the poles, the smaller the angle of incidence and the less ozone is produced (also less danger to humans because the UV has to go through more atmosphere). This is evidenced by changes in the size of the holes with the seasons, where the angle of incidence changes.
I understand that the earth is slightly pear shaped, because of the weight of the antarctic continent on the mantle. This affects the angle of incidence of the UV rays differently between the north and south poles. Means a larger hole over the antarctic.
What have I missed in the logic here?
tarpon says:
November 12, 2010 at 12:44 pm
IIRC one of the intermediate reactions runs about an order of magnitude slower than the model assumptions which means in my book, back to square one. They’ve got nothing.
Wonderful how many things we can find caused by people, when we start looking, even if we never looked before people started doing those things which allegedly damage the environment.
Is there anyone out there that can prove ozone levels at the South pole would recover with the transition to ozone friendly CFCs?
According to Nature article doi:10.1038/news050228-12, up to 60% of the ozone was destroyed in 2004 from solar wind storms which created ozone killing nitrogen oxides.
It is worse than we thought, but it is totally natural.
I remember when the O3 hole first arose – I was in Africa – on the High Veldt at the time.
It was suggested (though I have never seen the proof) that UV strength is HIGHER up on the high veldt (1600M plus) than on the S American beaches directly under the ‘hole’.
I wonder what the skin cancer rates are on the High Veldt compared to ANZ ? And what the comparative incidence of UVa & UVb really is.
I want our HALON fire suppressant equipment back; I want our highly effective NON-DAMAGING; safe to use on all fire types HALON fire extinguishers back – you may remember the little green extinguishers that replaced large red/black/blue/stone/cream ones that you had to be trained to know which one to use ? (Mind you; they were also a damned good laxative !) .
I also asked the same question then – HOW DO WE KNOW THE OZONE LAYER WASN’T LIKE THAT BEFORE ?
Politics of shame; mass murder and suppression of the 3rd world:
DDT
CFC
AGW
Mooloo
Your views are based on anecdote mine are based on a lecture by a professor doing research at Caltech. This does not guarantee that it is correct but I consider it is worth consideration. I will try and find a reference for you but at the moment I cannot find it. Incidentally I found it while googling when I was in NZ. I am well aware of how strong the sun is there. However it is not as strong as say Phoenix arizona.
I tried to distinguish between the professor’ theories that are yet unproven and the facts that I quoted which I are based on the charts in the lecture which were referenced.
I did not say that dark skinned people cannot get sun burned. I said they rarely get skin cancer. I might add that when they do the incidence is in random places on the body e.g. in the armpit and is unlikely to have a UV cause.
The researchers show a clear correlation between the increased use of sunscreen and the incidence of melanomas although they take pains to make clear that correlation does not prove causality. However this fact and the correlation between melanomas and regions with HIGH ozone levels provoked the research which is still going on.
This was the reason for my piece since it had been stated that NZ was on the edge of the ozone hole. This is just not true. It is in a band of high ozone concentration which runs through that latitude.
You may find it hard to see how it works but I like to keep and open mind.