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).
Maybe I can comment on Cal 11.37
I am a retired anaesthesiologist who practiced in Australia for 13 years, 4 years in Townsville, North Queensland, at the time the largest tropical ‘white’ population in the world.
There are 3 types of skin cancer, basal cell carcinoma (locally invasive but usually ‘curable’), squamous cell carcinoma ( nasty if not caught early) and malignant melanoma (the really nasty one).
We saw a large number of BCCs (particularly in Irish descendants) which no-one would dispute is sun induced, an average number of SCCs which also occur in areas of skin that never see the sun, and, relative to the UK, a huge number of malignant melanomas. But the MMs seemed to have a much better prognosis than those in the UK and this was put down to higher awareness of skin problems and earlier diagnosis and surgery.
An anecdote. My brother in law, a G.P. in the UK (family doctor) was diagnosed with M.M. ( local excision of a ‘black mole’ looked at by our local teaching hospital ‘skin specialist’ histopathologist) , and subsequent wide ‘local excision’ of lower medial leg.
Two months later, a medical friend suggested a second opinion on the ‘path’ given by a ‘world expert’ in (I hate to say) London. Non- malignant!
Brother in law going strong 18 years later.
No law suite – we don’t do that to each other in the UK.
Lesson – M.M. is difficult to diagnose even by average experts and I suspect the better prognosis in Aus may be associated with misdiagnosis. I hasten to add I have the greatest respect for Aus medicine which overall is the best in the world.
A prof. from Newcastle, UK, has suggested that M.M. is unrelated to UV exposure. A number occur on the soles of feet and it is certainly not unknown in those with high melanin pigmentation.
Probably ‘crap’ but Q.I.
Ozone is destroyed and created by solar EUV, the EUV levels are not far off solar minimum levels and are refusing to rise above their low plateau which is also seen in the closely related F10.7 flux emissions. I keep track of the EUV levels HERE.
I think the cause of the ozone holes is varying quantities of charged solar protons coming in at the poles on the solar wind and destroying ozone at the higher levels.
The holes would grow when the sun is active and slowly recover when the sun is less active.
After several decades of active sun it will take a while.
hell_is_like_newark says on November 12, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Cui bono? Follow the money.
Al Cooper says:
November 12, 2010 at 10:10 am
By that logic, all the CO2 and O3 is at sea level and the N2 is at the top.
Mooloo
How do you explain the rise of skin cancer in the UK?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cornwall/6284330.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2461367/Britons-love-affair-with-the-sun-leads-to-skin-cancer-increase.html
Sean asked: “My question is has anyone looked carefully at the natural processes to bring catalytic components to the stratosphere that are unique in the antarctic and how big would the ozone hole be if there were no CFC’s involved?”
Answer: Absolutely the SAME SIZE. The ozone molecule is the most unstable molecule known and as soon one O3 molecule touches another, the reaction results in 3 oxygen (O2) molecules. The famous Dimer Theory by Mario Molina is totally flawed: it states that for chlorine and other gases react with O3 it needs a hard surface (ice crystals of Stratospheric Polar Clouds = SPCs) AND the Sun’s light. Trouble is that ozone levels start to go down in Antarctica stratosphere about ONE MONTH BEFORE the first UV rays reach the Polar stratosphere.
The formation of the “hole” is caused by the onset of the Polar Vortex and its hurricane winds that stir O3 molecules and the constant colliding of O3 with O3 produce oxygen. As there is no sunlight to produce O3, their levels plummet rapidly in the darkness. A totally dynamic process, completely unrelated to chlorine, fluorine, bromine, etc chemistry.
*************
greg2213 said: “How much chlorine/freon/etc has actually been measured at various altitudes and locations, as opposed to just theorized?”
Fabian, Borders & Penkett (1989) measured CFCs reaching up to 29-30 km altitude in concentrations of 0.1 ppTRILLION. The fact that falsifies the “ozone catastrophic theory” is that UVC radiation is the only one that has energy enough to dissociate the CFC molecule –and UVC is completely absorbed above 35 km altitude.
A Bonus: ozone absorbs very little energy from incoming photons. The real UV shields we have are Nitrogen and Oxygen = 99% of the atmosphere. Ozone makes only 0.000003% of the atmosphere.
Readers should be warned that there is great deal of (un)scientific nonsense among the comments in this thread. A lot of commenters who have no expertise seem to think it is ok to theorise about this subject anyway, or draw false comparisons and analogies.
There are some very sensible comments too but difficult to weed out the rubbish.
This blog really needs a function where specific comments can be replied to. Not endless multiple layers of replies, just one layer will do (e.g., see Andrew Bolt’s blog).
In the off-hand case that nobody asked the most obvious question: What’s with the so-called ‘ozone hole’ over the Antarctic, when no such event happens over the Arctic?
Polar is polar, is it not? Why would such an event happen over ONLY one of the poles?
And then there’s that bit about Mt. Eurebus being an active volcano, spewing lots of chlorine into the air, an element which is supposed to be implicated in the destruction of ozone.
WHY NO MENTION OF THAT?
Mooloo says:
November 12, 2010 at 2:09 pm
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.
Well the research that was quoted one was looking at the effect of UV on secretion of sebum and found that it increased it but was concerned that the secretion would oxidize and damage the skin. The other was looking for a suitable compound for a high strength sunscreen and found that human skin secreted one and that it did not oxidized but was almost 100% effective. The final video was the result of medical research into vitamin D3 secretions (an associated secretion from the sebaceous glands) and found that it took 48 hours for it to be absorbed back into the skin – so washing would remove it and the other protective secretions.
Sorry that the research does not match with the apocryphal and anecdotal evidence on skin cancers, but that is often what happens when subjects are really researched.
Sam Hall says:
November 12, 2010 at 9:53 am
Don’t have a source for this but I heard the the patent on the old Freon was running out. Be interesting if somebody with the right skills could find out for sure.
———————
The old freon/CFC patents must have expired years ago. In fact the patents on the successors to the CFCs for respiratory drug inhalation, the hydrofluoroalkanes (HFAs) are expiring right about now. My, off the top of the head understanding, is that some asthma inhalers (rescue medication/albuterol) with CFCs had to be continued way past the Montreal protocol (up to now even) because manufacturers hadn’t got the alternatives ready. Asthmatic kids dying through a lack of rescue medication would not have been good. Of course, the use of CFCs in inhalers was dwarfed by their other uses.
All just a complete pile of crap, but it led to the development of patentable dry powder inhalers (no propellant) that are now doing over $10 Billion a year for the pharmaceutical companies (Advair, Spiriva Symbicort), maybe over $12 Billion. God bless those greenies.
A lot of the questions and misconceptions in the comments here can be clarified by the ozone information at http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Ozone.htm
Ozone is depleted in reaction with nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the atmosphere (which is produced as a result of solar events – see documentation towards the end of the above reference).
The Arctic ozone column in March is correlated with ENSO (see documentation about half way through above reference).
There are indeed a lot of misconceptions in this thread, but I am afraid that the website linked by Alan Cheetham above will not remove them. Come on, a site that does not even mention CFC’s – how plausible is that going to be?
The statement
“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”
at the top of this thread is misleading, because that is not what the referenced paper actually says (and also because paper is incorrect anyway)
As far as we know, the hole has been there since the continents have been in this configuration. There has been no significant change (apart from seasonal changes) since it was first measured in the 1950s.
Ozone is good for us, heavier than air it’s the fresh smell of being at the seaside and with it comes the health benefits of extra oxygen, places like the Dead Sea have a thick layer of ozone and so popular destination for those with lung problems.
There are some pages around describing the benefits, if you can get past the agendas, such as
http://www.understandingozone.com/article_notsmog.asp
http://www.edskilling.com/yh.html
Used in water treatment plants and in getting rid of bacteria/mould in buildings too.
Quickly clear up a couple misconceptions…
Why does the ozone hole occur over the SH and not the NH?
In a frictionless, zonally-heated world, atmospheric flow wants to move parallel to latitude bands. During the winter time, vortices tend to set up near the polar regions because of strong thermal gradients (little-no incoming solar radiation at the pole, significant amount in the tropics). In the Southern Hemisphere, there is little land mass to disrupt this flow, therefore, the vortex that sets up is circular and strong, doing an efficient job of not mixing anything north/south into or out of the column. Land masses in the Northern Hemisphere cause the polar vortex in the Arctic to take on a more “wavelike” shape, which results in a weaker vortex which has enhanced meridional transport relative to its SH cousin.
Why are CFCs implicated in SH ozone loss when they are emitted in the NH?
Ozone occurs in the stratosphere– for a pollutant like CFCs to interact with it, it is necessary that it be transported above the tropopause. To do this, pollutants typically need to be mixed into equatorial regions where convective towers can penetrate the tropopause. This means the CFCs that play a role in O3 depletion typically ascend near the equator and become well-mixed in both stratospheric hemispheres, even if it is only emitted in the NH.
Ozone is attracted to poles because it’s a polar molecule and the magnetic fields “pull” it.
This is obviously not true, otherwise we would see molecules such as water vapor collecting at the poles (and aligning along magnetic field lines) along with non-polar molecules ending up near the equator (to maintain hydrostatic balance).
Re asthma – I found this posted by someone with this problem:
“In 1904 Danish physiologist Christian Bohr described what is now known as the Bohr effect. Simply put, CO2 causes the release of the oxygen from the hemoglobin to tissue in the body. If there is not enough CO2 in the blood the oxygen is not released and the celss experience oxygen starvation. In order to have enough CO2 in the blood there must be sufficient amount in the lungs. If there is a shortage of CO2 in the lungs, the bronchioles become inflamed (i.e., swollen and narrowed – as in asthma) to reduce CO2 loss during exhalation. A concentration of up to 6.5% CO2 in the lungs is healthy; less than 4% is life threatening. Please not that these percentages are significantly higher than the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere.”
From – http://www.iceagenow.com/CO2_essential_to_the_health_and_well_being_of_our_bodies.htm
Not having asthma it’s not something I can test for myself so couldn’t personally recommend trying, but it’s a remedy for hyperventilation to breathe into a paper bag to up the level of CO2. Check with physician.
jimmi says:
November 12, 2010 at 8:51 pm
There are indeed a lot of misconceptions in this thread, but I am afraid that the website linked by Alan Cheetham above will not remove them. Come on, a site that does not even mention CFC’s – how plausible is that going to be?
Baumgaertner et al. 2010 in its introduction states
The Earth’s middle and upper atmosphere are strongly influenced by solar variability.
Changes in the solar spectral irradiance as well as in the solar wind can lead to
significant perturbations. Solar wind disturbances have been shown to lead to geomagnetic activity variations, which can result in magnetospheric loss of electrons. These electrons precipitate into the atmosphere at high geomagnetic latitudes where they lead to the production of NOx, termed EEP NOx, through dissociation and ionisation processes. Downward transport in the dark polar winter can lead to significant enhancements of NOx in the stratosphere. Because NOx can catalytically destroy ozone, such NOx enhancements lead to ozone depletion in the upper stratosphere as has been shown e.g. by Callis et al. (1998); Brasseur and Solomon (2005); Jackman et al. (2008); Baumgaertner et al. (2009).
Paul Crutzen is a co author.
A few comments re some of the questions above.
A few years ago, knowing how disproportionately heavier CFCs are to other atmospheric gases, I asked the same question as to how the CFCs make it to the top of the atmosphere to Sherry Rowland. His one word answer was; “Diffusion”.
The difference in the development and magnitude of the “ozone hole” between the North and South Poles is largely a meteorological one. The presence of a large and elevated landmass at the South Pole versus the ocean areas at the North pole, lead to significant hemispheric differences in climate. The Antarctic is a lot colder in both summer and winter than the Arctic. The SH circumpolar jetstream is significantly stronger than its NH counterpart. This results in a larger, colder and more persistent wintertime polar vortex over the SH. One of the consequences of this is that surface and atmospheric temperatures over the South Pole in winter can drop to levels where some liquid or gaseous atmospheric compounds can condense or freeze. CO2 freezes at -78.5°C (194.7K). Temps in the Antarctic stratosphere can dip below 200K in a strong winter circumpolar vortex. The formation of liquid or crystalline clouds provide abundant condensation nuclei for chemical reactions to occur, especially just prior to and around the time of Antarctic sunrise.
The problem with the whole CFC/Ozone depletion theory is that the reactions described by Rowland and Molina, et al, may indeed be occurring as hypothesized, perhaps at different relative magnitudes, but they are only one of many other atmospheric, solar and cosmic interactions that may be occurring and about which we are still unable to determine their relative importance vis-a-vis ozone depletion.
It is fine to investigate and formulate hypotheses based on the examination of a few of the many components involved in the real world atmospheric chemistry. But, with so little understanding of the degree of influence that CFCs may or may not have on polar ozone levels, it was and is wrong to deprive the public their use of such demonstrably safe and effective compounds.
If there is one characteristic of science in the late 20th and current 21st Century, it is the unholy alliance of science and politics that has fostered the abuse of unproven theories to achieve self-serving ends. We still haven’t fully acknowledged the tragic mismanagement of DDT, the phony scare of Alar, the still contentious AGW constructs including causation and implication. The role of CFCs belong on that list.
John T says: (November 12, 2010 at 10:12 am) I want my son’s cheap albuterol inhaler back.
Worth posting over and over any time the opportunity arises, John. The harm done by (do)good people in ignorant innocence is sometimes, I feel, even greater than the harm caused by people of actual evil will.
Maksimovich,
I was not objecting to that website on the grounds that it mentioned the NOx cycle – I know about that – I was objecting on the grounds that it ONLY mentioned NOx, with no reference at all to any other mechanisms. It also does not seem to know when Spring in Antarctica is.
If we experience a magnetic reversal sometime soon, will the ozone hole migrate to the North Pole and leave us southern hemispherers in peace?
Geoff Alder
Can we tax galactic cosmic rays?
I agree with the comment of Braddles that there is a lot of nonsence sprouted in this thread. Even people claiming to be chemists seem to have missed a few vital classes in college… For instance: claiming that chorinated pesticides are non-toxic. (A pesticide is non-toxic…) For a toxicologist such as myself this is frankly a mind-boggling comment. And I would love to see a youtube video of the proponent of this comment stir is theaspoon of the stuff in his yoghurt. Hope he likes acne and is not too fond of his liver.
@Colin
The theory about CFC’s and the ozone hole might be true. But there are 2 problems:
1) The ozone hole started about 1985 and is about the same size today. When did CFC’s get into the atmosphere? We were told that they needed 50 years to get there. When CFC’s were at their peak in 1985, why didn’t the hole expand. Normally there should at least be some kind of correlation between CFC’s and the Ozone layer.
2) We were told that there exist no natural ozone destroyers that reach the ozone layer. Today we know that there exist many of them, naturally occuring bromine and chlorine molecules.
Now, I ask you, with all the chlorine molecules humanity produces, and the ones that occur naturally, how can we know that its the CFCs and nothing else?
Chlorine has always been an enemy for green activists (Seveso, dioxine) etc …
“God created 91 chemical elements, man more than a thousand and the devil created one: chlorine.
Greenpeace magazine (Belgium), August 1992.”
What a surprise that it will destroy all life on earth … 😉 The great chief Greenpeace has spoken. No reason to become skeptic???