From MSNBC: WELLINGTON, New Zealand — International efforts to phase out the use of chlorofluorocarbons and other ozone-depleting substances may be paying off, according to research revealed Friday by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in New Zealand.
The Antarctica ozone hole is the smallest it has been in the past five years, NIWA said.
While a one-year reduction in the ozone hole can’t indicate a recovery stage, NIWA’s atmospheric experts say the new information adds to a pattern of less severe ozone holes in recent years.
Satellite data combined with ground-base measurements, including the Antarctica New Zealand Arrival Heights observatory near Scott Base, show the hole reached a maximum area of about 22 million square kilometers (about 8.5 million square miles) and a 27 million ton deficit of ozone this year, compared with 24 million square kilometers (about 9.3 million square miles) and a 35 million ton deficit last year.
The largest hole, according to NIWA, was 29 million square kilometers (about 11.2 million square miles) and a 43 million ton deficit, recorded in 2000 and then repeated in 2006.
“We see a lot of year-to-year variation in ozone holes, caused by differences in atmospheric temperature and circulation,” said NIWA atmospheric scientist Stephen Wood in a prepared statement. “So we can’t definitively say the ozone hole is improving from one new year of observations.”
“However, we have now had a few years in succession with less severe holes,” Wood said. “That is an indication we may be beginning to see a recovery.”
…
More at MSNBC
Antarctic ozone hole smallest in five years
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The “ozone hole” is LUDICROUS!
Ozone IS ALWAYS FORMED IN THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE due to the High Energy UV.
The concept that the Chloro-floro carbons have caused a HOLE in it is a big fat FRAUD.
It’s a problem of observation and DATA. (Limited observation time, NO BASELINES, etc.)
Somehow CF’s ARE NOT CHEMICALLY REACTIVE in the lower atmosphere. AND yet they become ABLE TO REACT IN NUMBERS VASTLY GREATER THAN THEIR MEAN FREE PATH WOULD ALLOW THEM TOO in the upper atmosphere? (I worked out the numbers years ago.)
AGAIN an example of “overly educated” people putting their BASIC BRAINS IN A BUCKET and making “something out of nothing”.
Want another example of that? 10 PPM DDT “everywhere” in the soil. “Never breaks down…”
Problem 1: You work out the amount, and it’s like 10 times the amount EVER produced. (That should have been the big clue that this was a big lie!)
Problem 2: U of Michigan found some “sealed soil” samples, dated 1910 about 20 years ago.
Someone decided to analyse. They found that they had, (you guessed it), 10 PPM DDT. (Natural occurance..)
DO I HAVE TO BELABOR THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE CFC/OZONE “depletion” and this miss-attribution.
Now, interestingly. SOLAR WIND is way down? Does that have a connection? Who knows? Maybe in 100 years we’ll have enough data.
If it hadn’t been for my rooster crowing this morning, the sun wouldn’t have even come up at all!
BillD
December 7, 2010 at 7:35 am
This is a topic with essentially no controversy among main stream scientists.
###
Other then the little problems of having never found a real link between the ozone hole and CFCs, or the fact no one understands how the ozone hole works, what causes it and how big it real should be at any given time.
I take exception to the statement that a single year of recovery does not indicate recovery. The conjectured causative is either effectatious or it isn’t. If it isn’t, we should see identical results under similar atmospheric/solar conditions. Further, the article does not discuss the actual measure of CFCs , something relatively easy to do.
Let’s not forget the fact that they had a little “we bad” moment awhile back when they admitted that the CFC-ozone chemistry were not quite correct and it is mainly nitrogen in the atmosphere and solar radiation that breaks down ozone. CFCs may be a non-issue in the end.
Let’s also not forget that the ozone scare was pushed and orchestrated by the major CFC species manufacturer at the time, whose patent was also expiring. So, they pushed the scare and had the current favorite species banned, and guess what? They had a useful, but expensive substitute (under patent, of course) handy and ready to go. Laughing all the way to the back, they were.
The ozone scare was a business maneuver. It had nothing to do with the ozone hole, but all to do with competition and profits.
And, finally, let’s not forget that we have never seen the planet without an ozone hole. It may be that this is the normal state for our world.
Max is correct……in winter the poles are turned away from the sun, they get LESS UV light incoming and LESS ozone forms.
this stuff is really simple and stunning that people called “scientists” dont seem to understand basic science.
ozone is simply OXYGEN in an unstable molecule.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 7, 2010 at 6:41 am
More likely the ozone hole expands when the sun is active and contracts when the sun is quiet. An active sun thereby destroying ozone faster in the higher levels of the atmosphere than does a quiet sun.
It is solar activity that creates the ozone in the first place. And 2010 is the most active of the last five years…
http://www.junkscience.com has some good raw data
If anybody is interested, research Dupont and their history with CFC’s
Rent seeking extraordaire
Montreal protocol made them A LOT of money
STATISTICS RULE NUMBER ONE
Correlation does not equal Causation.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 7, 2010 at 6:41 am
“More likely the ozone hole expands when the sun is active and contracts when the sun is quiet.”
Exactly. We can use the Ozone Hole to tell us about the average temperature in the future.
My daughter-in-law [shameless plug], Signe, had some thoughts on that: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/nature04746.pdf
Figure 1 shows reductions in stratospheric chlorine levels compared to total ozone through time.
Perhaps the ozone hole had more to do with the patent expiration on Freon.
Found it: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/09/this-years-antarctic-ozone-hole-is-5th-biggest/
How can the hole be shrinking in size over the last couple of years when 2 years ago we had the 5th largest hole ever measured?
These guys are unbelievable cherry pickers to come up with that…
MattN says:
December 7, 2010 at 10:17 am
How can the hole be shrinking in size over the last couple of years when 2 years ago we had the 5th largest hole ever measured?
E.g.
2004, size = 30
2005, 25
2006, 20
2007, 15
2008, 10 = 5th largest of last five
2009, 8
2010, 5
🙂
Leif Svalgaard said:
“It is solar activity that creates the ozone in the first place. And 2010 is the most active of the last five years…”
Creates it below 45km but destroys it above 45km.
2010 shows a pitiful uptick after 5 years of progress through a period of historically low activity. Not enough to make a difference as yet.
I wait with interest to see how much difference a single small solar cycle makes between trough and peak.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 7, 2010 at 10:34 am
Creates it below 45km but destroys it above 45km.
Ozone hole is below. There is almost no ozone above 45 km as the density is a thousand times smaller going from 30 km to 80 km. This is a general problem you have: no sense of proportion. It doesn’t matter what the ozone above 45 km is, because there is so little of it.
Leif Svalgaard said:
“My daughter-in-law [shameless plug], Signe, had some thoughts on that: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/nature04746.pdf
Figure 1 shows reductions in stratospheric chlorine levels compared to total ozone through time.”
Yes, Leif she had some thoughts in 2006 as follows:
“During the next few years, ozone levels in the Arctic will be strongly
influenced by stratospheric temperature, possibly resulting in
delayed recovery or record-low ozone observations”.
That is the exact opposite of what has actually happened. I give her 0 out of 10. Mind you she does refer to the Arctic whereas this thread relates to the Antarctic.
Has the Arctic ozone hole behaved differently ?
The decline in ozone has two components. The first is a gradually decline in total ozone in the upper atmosphere due to CFCs–which are produced by humans and have neglible natural sources, and larger seasonal changes that are accentuated in the south pole. These seasonal changes are due in part to air circulation. Fortunately, CFCs peaked in the upper atmosphere in the early 90s and are starting to come down in response to the international treaty limiting their use. This should allow a gradual recovery of the earth’s total ozone in the upper atmosphere, although seasonal changes can still be large. My air conditioner and refrigerator seem to work ok without CFCs and it’s good to have some aspect of the environment that is improving.
Thank God!
Taking fluoro carbon propellents out of rescue inhalers and leaving tens of thousands of asthmatic children to writh in suffocating agony and litter er’s across the world has paid off !
Whats a few thousand dead kids when we can have a smaller ozone hole!
Time to celebrate.
Never mind that, if true, this actually suggests that the entire man caused ozone hole hypothesis is crap.
Leif Svalgaard said:
“Ozone hole is below. There is almost no ozone above 45 km as the density is a thousand times smaller going from 30 km to 80 km. This is a general problem you have: no sense of proportion. It doesn’t matter what the ozone above 45 km is, because there is so little of it.”
The lower density with height doesn’t matter. The more ozone there is above 45km the better the ozone below 45km will be protected from the ozone depletion effects higher up.
If an active sun reduces the ozone higher up it exposes the ozone lower down to more attack and encourages a faster upward flow of ozone so the ozone holes grow.
Haigh’s data finds increased ozone above 45km at a time of quiet sun so the ozone below 45km is getting more protection and is flowing upward less fast so the ozone holes shrink.
The level of 45km appears to be the height at which the destruction processes higher up segue into the creation processes lower down.
That accords with actual observations.
All that is necessary is to shift the net effect between destruction and creation from positive to negative and back again. A fine balance can be upset by small changes.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 7, 2010 at 10:41 am
Has the Arctic ozone hole behaved differently ?
Well, you are the expert [?]. Her Figure 1 shows total ozone from 60S to 60N where almost all the ozone is created. It is relevant to the effect of GFCs as a whole. The Arctic/Antarctic holes are controlled by atmospheric circulation.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 7, 2010 at 10:41 am
Has the Arctic ozone hole behaved differently?
And: what Arctic ozone hole?, BTW.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 7, 2010 at 11:00 am
The lower density with height doesn’t matter. The more ozone there is above 45km the better the ozone below 45km will be protected from the ozone depletion effects higher up.
Complete nonsense.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 7, 2010 at 11:00 am
The lower density with height doesn’t matter.
For each one Ozone molecule in the mesosphere there are a thousand ozone molecules in the stratosphere. Doesn’t matter what you do to that lone molecule in the mesosphere.
Energetic particles from solar flares can destroy ozone:
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sw.html#fleffects
Any correlation between a more quiet sun and this smaller ozone hole?