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
E.M.Smith says:
December 8, 2010 at 11:49 am
So kind of you to provide further evidence that the changes in the ozone hole can have nothing to do with anything CFC, as they are a century scale event, not an annual scale.
I think everybody [except the usual crackpots with completely open minds] would agree that the year to year variations have nothing to do with CFCs. Over the century, ever increasing CFCs would have an [easily avoidable] effect. We take improvements even if they are small.
It is like with CO2 [or solar or anything else], people get all hot under the collar when they [wrongly] claim that there is only ONE cause of everything. In the end it is a matter of cost-benefit analysis [aside from feasibility]. On CO2, I’m personally hoping [perhaps against knowing better] that there is a significant effect as warm is better than cold.
my bullsh!t sensors are tingling. what a load of crap.
first they have not proven man made (released) gas caused any of this hole.
second if man made gases caused the hole wouldn’t it be in the northern more industrialized pole?
third aren’t these claimants the same cheating liars who propagandize about man made global warming?
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 8, 2010 at 10:39 am
“The decrease in freon since 1995 is of course because of reactions with ozone, slowly eating away at the freon already there.”
I thought the reaction was catalytic w.r.t. CFCs.
Ozone concentration marches to the drum of solar irradiance and cosmic ray flux.
Ozone could care less what the CFC concentration is.
Bart says:
December 8, 2010 at 2:02 pm
I thought the reaction was catalytic w.r.t. CFCs.
To a point, the freon molecule is broken up [by UV] into Chlorine [and other stuff]. The Chlorine may participate in 10,000 reactions, but it eventually rains out via HCl. The process is complicated, but is well described here: http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/1z2.html
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 8, 2010 at 6:48 am
Geoff Sharp says:
December 8, 2010 at 2:15 am
In my research I have noted that 2002 had some major flare activity which saw the sunspot record move away sharply from the F10.7 flux record.
——————————————
Most of that deviation is caused by the SIDC record being wrong. Other SSN series do not show such a large difference, and then there is L&P beginning to depress the SSN record.
I don’t accept your argument, and even if correct the large flare activity still occurred. The smallest ozone hole before 2002 was 1988, this year also saw a lot of M and X class flares. If the flares are of consequence the timing is important as they would need to occur between July and September. Do you know of a register that lists the dates of larger flares?
E M Smith said:
“So a nice “blocking wind” to keep things tidy over the south pole… Add in variations in solar input, magnetic lines, galactic particles, stir mightily – but always in place, viola, a hole. No CFCs need apply.”
My thoughts in a nutshell but no point in tackling Dr. No.
Nothing one could ever conceive of could ever have the remotest possibility of even contributing to a process whereby the sun could have a top down effect on climate.
It’s not the sun. Period. No Siree.
However lots of others take a different view:
http://search.orange.co.uk/all?q=top+down+solar+effects&brand=ouk&tab=web&p=searchbox&pt=home_web&home=false&x=55&y=11
Geoff Sharp says:
December 8, 2010 at 2:46 pm
I don’t accept your argument
The validity of my argument does not depend upon your acceptance [your loss]
Do you know of a register that lists the dates of larger flares?
some info here: ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SOLAR_FLARES/
This site is more ‘visual’: http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/
Enter a date and have a look. Now, flares are effects of solar activity and not causes thereof, so will just follow f10.7 or the SSN, and not be influential in controlling the indices.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 8, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Thanks for the links, but I am not sure they give me what I need. The data link is good as it shows monthly values by day but I am assuming the daily total is an accumulation of all flares on the day. I think only the bigger X and M class flares might be the ones to study.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 8, 2010 at 5:43 pm
I think only the bigger X and M class flares might be the ones to study.
That information is in the files too:
31777100119 1025 1036 1029 C 11 GOES 5.5E-04 11041
31777100119 1303 1350 1341 <b<M 23 GOES 3.9E-02 11041
31777100119 1532 1543 1536 C 23 GOES 1.0E-03 11041
31777100119 1744 1821 1755 C 51 GOES 8.4E-03 11041
31777100119 2023 2046 2035 M 17 GOES 1.8E-02 11041
31777100119 2223 2240 2233 C 45 GOES 2.7E-03 11041
The above from ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SOLAR_FLARES/FLARES_XRAY/2010/xray2010
I’ve been on a quest looking for influences of the Drake Passage on Atlantic SST’s. So far I have found a paucity of information on how this narrow passage might influence the North Atlantic. And it could all boil down to wind. Is this another chapter in “it’s the weather stupid”?
http://mason.gmu.edu/~bklinger/drake.pdf
This seems like a good place to start in understanding ocean circulation. And the author is quite well renowned.
http://www.amazon.com/Ocean-Circulation-Wind-Driven-Thermohaline-Processes/dp/0521852285
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 8, 2010 at 6:24 pm
That did it, looking at the data there does not look to be a correlation between flare activity and Sudden Stratosphere Warming(SSW). I moved onto Aurora information thinking the proof of a direct hit and including CME’s might turn up something but once again not convincing. The stratosphere maps from NOAA showing the warming and lack of warming in each case. 1988, 1998, 2002.
Geoff Sharp says:
December 8, 2010 at 9:22 pm
That did it, looking at the data there does not look to be a correlation between flare activity and Sudden Stratosphere Warming(SSW)
As usual, no amount of data will sway the enthusiasts from their ideas, so your conclusion [which was not in doubt], alas, will fall on barren ground and deaf ears [to mix some metaphors].
For argument, let’s assume that ozone depletion is caused by man-made CFLs.
My next question would be: What changes in UV levels have occurred at the surface? This would be the bottom line as to what consequences it might have. I have seen some UV-level vs time graphs for a few sites, and they showed no significant trends. But I’d be happy to be enlightened.
If UV levels at the surface had “spiked” lately (last 20 yrs, say), wouldn’t the MSM have plastered their front pages with hockey-stick UV graphs?