Say what? There isn’t much that surprises me anymore in the rarefied air that is climate science today. This headline made me do a double take, and the sentence that followed, blaming “unusually low temperatures”, even more so. Here’s a NASA satellite derived image in a science story from 2001 on the Arctic ozone:
And the mechanism, it seems “weather” has a major role:
NASA researchers using 22 years of satellite-derived data have confirmed a theory that the strength of “long waves,” bands of atmospheric energy that circle the Earth, regulate the temperatures in the upper atmosphere of the Arctic, and play a role in controlling ozone losses in the stratosphere. These findings will also help scientists predict stratospheric ozone loss in the future.
There’s no hint of this in the press release. Instead they say:
For several years now scientists have pointed to a connection between ozone loss and climate change…
Arctic on the verge of record ozone loss – Arctic-wide measurements verify rapid depletion in recent days
Potsdam/Bremerhaven, March 14th, 2011.
Unusually low temperatures in the Arctic ozone layer have recently initiated massive ozone depletion. The Arctic appears to be heading for a record loss of this trace gas that protects the Earth’s surface against ultraviolet radiation from the sun. This result has been found by measurements carried out by an international network of over 30 ozone sounding stations spread all over the Arctic and Subarctic and coordinated by the Potsdam Research Unit of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association (AWI) in Germany.
“Our measurements show that at the relevant altitudes about half of the ozone that was present above the Arctic has been destroyed over the past weeks,” says AWI researcher Markus Rex, describing the current situation. “Since the conditions leading to this unusually rapid ozone depletion continue to prevail, we expect further depletion to occur.”
The changes observed at present may also have an impact outside the thinly populated Arctic. Air masses exposed to ozone loss above the Arctic tend to drift southwards later. Hence, due to reduced UV protection by the severely thinned ozone layer, episodes of high UV intensity may also occur in middle latitudes. “Special attention should thus be devoted to sufficient UV protection in spring this year,” recommends Rex.
Ozone is lost when breakdown products of anthropogenic chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are turned into aggressive, ozone destroying substances during exposure to extremely cold conditions. For several years now scientists have pointed to a connection between ozone loss and climate change, and particularly to the fact that in the Arctic stratosphere at about 20km altitude, where the ozone layer is, the coldest winters seem to have been getting colder and leading to larger ozone losses. “The current winter is a continuation of this development, which may indeed be connected to global warming,” atmosphere researcher Rex explains the connection that appears paradoxical only at first glance. “To put it in a simplified manner, increasing greenhouse gas concentrations retain the Earth’s thermal radiation at lower layers of the atmosphere, thus heating up these layers. Less of the heat radiation reaches the stratosphere, intensifying the cooling effect there.” This cooling takes place in the ozone layer and can contribute to larger ozone depletion. “However, the complicated details of the interactions between the ozone layer and climate change haven’t been completely understood yet and are the subject of current research projects,” states Rex. The European Union finances this work in the RECONCILE project, a research programme supported with 3.5 million euros in which 16 research institutions from eight European countries are working towards improved understanding of the Arctic ozone layer.
In the long term the ozone layer will recover thanks to extensive environmental policy measures enacted for its protection. This winter’s likely record-breaking ozone loss does not alter this expectation. “By virtue of the long-term effect of the Montreal Protocol, significant ozone destruction will no longer occur during the second half of this century,” explains Rex. The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty adopted under the UN umbrella in 1987 to protect the ozone layer and for all practical purposes bans the production of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) worldwide today. CFCs released during prior decades however, will not vanish from the atmosphere until many decades from now. Until that time the fate of the Arctic ozone layer essentially depends on the temperature in the stratosphere at an altitude of around 20 km and is thus linked to the development of earth’s climate.
This is a joint statement of the following institutions. The persons mentioned in each case are also at your disposal as contacts.
Belgium
Hugo De Backer, Royal Meteorological Institute of Belgium, +32 2 3730594, Hugo.DeBacker@meteo.be
Canada
Tom McElroy, Environment Canada, +1 416 739 4630, Tom.McElroy(at)ec.gc.ca
David W. Tarasick, Air Quality Res. Div., Environ. Canada, +1 416 739-4623, david.tarasick(at)ec.gc.ca
Kaley A. Walker, Univ. Toronto, Dep. of Physics, +1 416 978 8218, kwalker(at)atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca
Czech Republic
Karel Vanicek, Solar and Ozone Observatory, Czech Hydromet. Inst., +420 495260352, vanicek(at)chmi.cz
Denmark
Niels Larsen, Danish Climate Center, Danish Meteorological Institute, +45-3915-7414, nl(at)dmi.dk
Finland
Rigel Kivi, Arctic Research Center, Finnish Meteorological Institute, +358 405424543, rigel.kivi(at)fmi.fi
Esko Kyrö, Arctic Research Center, Finnish Meteorological Institute, +358 405527438, esko.kyro(at)fmi.fi
France
Sophie Godin-Beekmann, Gerard Ancellet, LATMOS CNRS-UPMC, +33 1442747 67 / 62, sophie.godin-beekmann@latmos.ipsl.fr, gerard.ancellet(at)latmos.ipsl.fr
Germany
Hans Claude, Wolfgang Steinbrecht, Deutscher Wetterdienst Hohenpeißenberg, +49 8805 954 170 / 172, hans.claude(at)dwd.de, wolfgang.steinbrecht(at)dwd.de
Franz-Josef Lübken, Leibniz-Institut für Atmosphärenphysik, +49 38293 68 100, luebken(at)iap-kborn.de
Greece
Dimitris Balis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, +30 2310 998192, balis@auth.gr
Costas Varotsos, University of Athens, +30 210 7276838, covar(at)phys.uoa.gr
Christos Zerefos, Academy of Athens, +30 210 8832048, zerefos(at)academyofathens.gr
Great Britain
Neil Harris, European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit, University of Cambridge, +44 1223 311797, Neil.Harris(at)ozone-sec.ch.cam.ac.uk
Norway
Cathrine Lund Myhre, NILU – Norwegian Institute for Air Research, +47-63898042, clm(at)nilu.no
Russia
Valery Dorokhov, Central Aerological Observatory , +7 499 206 9370, vdor(at)starlink.ru
Vladimir Yushkov, Central Aerological Observatory +7 495 408-6150, vladimir(at)caomsk.mipt.ru
Natalya Tsvetkova, Central Aerological Observatory +7 495 408-6150, nat(at)caomsk.mipt.ru
Spain
Concepción Parrondo, Manuel Gil , INTA, +34 91 5201564, parrondosc@inta.es, gilm(at)inta.es
Switzerland
René Stübi, Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology, MeteoSwiss, +41 26 662 62 29, rene.stubi(at)meteoswiss.ch
Geir O. Braathen, World Meteorological Organization, +41 22 730 82 35, GBraathen(at)wmo.int
USA
Ross J. Salawitch, Univ. of Maryland, MD, +1 626 487 5643, rjs(at)atmos.umd.edu
Francis J. Schmidlin, NASA/GSFC/Wallops Flight Facility, +1 757 824 1618, francis.j.schmidlin(at)nasa.gov
How’s the Ozone doing at the Antarctic? What’s happening to the total of the two poles?
Forgot my decimil points. Prior posting should read, “If I had 3.50 million Euros to spend, I’d spend a little, (maybe a piddly .25 million Euros or so,)…”
David L. Hagen says:
March 15, 2011 at 8:06 am
Don’t confuse the issue. ;~P
This does raise an interesting question, did they recalibrate the satellites when the earth shifted its axis to avoid the data overlaps and what are they using to gather this data for the “past 22+ years”?
Also, the blackout areas over the Arctic are extensive.
http://sacs.aeronomie.be/nrt/index.php?Year=2011&Month=03&Day=12&InstruGOME2=4&InstruOMI=1&InstruSCIA=0&InstruIASI=3&InstruAIRS=2&obsVCD=1&obsAAI=2&obsCCF=3&modeONE=0&modeADD=1&horaireIASI=1&horaireAIRS=1&Region=001
Alan the Brit said
“How do you know it hasn’t always been there?” Answers on a postcode to:-
Smart Arse Eco-Lawyers & CO,
Squillions Towers,
Screwthetaxpayer Avenue,
Richville.
Alan, I asked this question of the Max Planck institute and Cambridge University two years ago and they said they didn’t know.
Its perfectly possible that the ozone hole has been waxing and waning since time immemorial, but as we have only been able to measure it since the 1950’s any change is bound to be considered ‘our’ fault.
Can I charge you the same fee for the answer as Smart arse eco lawyers would have done?
tonyb
A warmer troposphere and a colder stratosphere are expected from a greenhouse gas forcing – that’s actually one of the major differences between GHG’s and other forcing distributions, which can be seen here.
CFC’s degrade ozone, and degrade it a lot more quickly at low temperatures. Hence increasing temperature stratification above the Arctic, with the heat trapped low in the atmosphere, looks to lead to a really cold stratosphere.
So it’s both CFC’s (slowly decreasing over time) and a really cold stratosphere involved in this.
Cal says,
“It is also worth noting that the occupations with the lowest level of skin cancers include roofers and farmers who are exposed to the most UV. ”
That is not surprising to anybody who knows about a couple of studies done a decade or so ago. The first compared a group of farmers with a group of office workers and found that the office workers had 2.2 times the skin cancer rates. The conclusion was that florescent lights caused skin cancer. The second study compared farmers with two groups of office workers. The office workers were divided on their history of severe sunburns. The extra cases of cancer were confined to the office workers with a history of severe sunburns.
And they seem to be able to utter this nonsense with a straight face…
From the article/press release: “To put it in a simplified manner, increasing greenhouse gas concentrations retain the Earth’s thermal radiation at lower layers of the atmosphere, thus heating up these layers. Less of the heat radiation reaches the stratosphere, intensifying the cooling effect there.” This cooling takes place in the ozone layer and can contribute to larger ozone depletion.
+++++++++++++
The fact the greenhouse effect warms the surface while cooling the stratosphere has long been known and is a major reason we know that recent warming is not part of a natural cycle or caused by changes in solar output.
Gavin says:
March 15, 2011 at 9:20 am
Cold in the Arctic during Winter? Why, yes, it is cold in the Arctic, even when the sun is shining. Sounds like a good description of a natural cycle, especially with the Sun putting out less UV this cycle and this minimum.
Oops, the Sun did it.
It all ends up coming from the Sun.
The Sun puts out the UV, shines where it falls, provided the energy that went into fossil fuels that man burns and the food that man eats.
Fusion, darn it. We need to douse the Sun.
““By virtue of the long-term effect of the Montreal Protocol, significant ozone destruction will no longer occur during the second half of this century,” explains Rex. The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty adopted under the UN umbrella in 1987 to protect the ozone layer and for all practical purposes bans the production of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) worldwide today. “
Except for the fact the CO2 trading for credits, so these EU types can keep over emitting, creates the market in China and other places to keep production up for the price of $100,000 per ton.
The chemical makers are paid as much as $100,000 or more for every ton they destroy of a potent greenhouse gas, HFC-23. The price for destroying it is based on its being 11,700 times more powerful as a climate-warming gas than carbon dioxide.
But that gas is a byproduct of an ozone-friendly refrigerant, HCFC-22, which those chemical makers also are paid to produce under the U.N.’s ozone treaty. Environmentalists say there is so much money in getting rid of HFC-23 that the chemical makers are overproducing HCFC-22 to have more of the byproduct to destroy.
“The evidence is overwhelming that manufacturers are creating excess HFC-23 simply to destroy it and earn carbon credits,” said Mark Roberts of the Environmental Investigation Agency, a research and advocacy group. “This is the biggest environmental scandal in history and makes an absolute mockery of international efforts to combat climate change.
http://www.physorg.com/news201583341.html
So close the CO2 trading and lower the production of CFC’s.
P.S. – With 30 ozone stations across the Arctic, could they please have a temperature reading. Seems like Jimmy over at GISS is trying to get by with only 3 or 4.
Hu McCulloch says:
So cooling is caused by warming:
Well, the way I understand it is that man-made CO2 is causing the warming is causing the cooling which is causing the ozone depletion which is caused by decreased solar radiation, so that means that man-made CO2 is putting out the sun.
Satellite: Aura
Launched: July 15, 2004 aboard a Delta II 7920-10L
Source: http://aura.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/index.html
Scary Quote: “The year is 2065. Nearly two-thirds of Earth’s ozone is gone – not just over the poles, but everywhere. Take a glimpse into the world we avoided by protecting the ozone layer.”
Comment related to scary quote: We’re all going to die unless we find better politicians or copy writers.
Information related to “Arctic Ozone Hole” on NASA site: none
Swell, we have 22+ years of Arctic ozone observation yet only one satellite in space capturing data since 2004. Did we use weather balloons for the earlier 15 years or Al Gore comments? /sarc
We can now definitely identify a major result of Global Warming. It has caused terminal idiocy at NASA.
My understanding–ozone is produced by sunlight energy splitting O2 and the reactive O atoms join an O2 to produce O3. There is somewhat of a shortage of sunshine in arctic and antarctic winters. No more ozone is produced then, but natural degradation to O2 continues, and holes develop.
We do not need UV protection when there is no sunlight and no UV. Ozone rebuilds in the Spring. There is a period with UV and low ozone, but this begins with small amoounts of UV. By the time the sunliught/UV returns in force, the protective layer is back.
Nothing to panic about–unless your grants depend on panic.
“the strength of “long waves,” bands of atmospheric energy that circle the Earth, regulate the temperatures in the upper atmosphere of the Arctic, and play a role in controlling ozone losses in the stratosphere”
“For several years now scientists have pointed to a connection between ozone loss and climate change…”
Says exactly the same thing to me,
Strength of long waves change, temperature…er whoops I meant that Climate Change results in ozone loss
It’s called marketing, just unlucky, whoops did it again …lucky that an “extensive environmental policy measures enacted for its protection”/grant is needed.
I think the main point that the report makes, is “give us money and we will shut up”
I find following statement rather ridiculous and apparently no one has mentioned it so far:
“The changes observed at present may also have an impact outside the thinly populated Arctic. Air masses exposed to ozone loss above the Arctic tend to drift southwards later. Hence, due to reduced UV protection by the severely thinned ozone layer, episodes of high UV intensity may also occur in middle latitudes. “Special attention should thus be devoted to sufficient UV protection in spring this year,” recommends Rex.”
Well, yes, those air masses do tend to drift south but they end up under areas with much higher ozone concentrations. How on earth could an Arctic outbreak lead to high uv intensity in mid latitudes? Am I missing something here or is this statement just absurd?
BTW, is the Gavin who posted above none other than the Gavin from Real Climate fame (or shame)?
Also, for those who may not appreciate this fact, when the troposphere warms, the stratosphere cools. If you have followed any of Joe Bastardi’s posts in the past, he actually uses this as a forecast tool, namely, the temperature anomalies at 10 mb.
Oops…the first sentence should read ” I find the following statement….etc”
So much for the success of the Montreal Protocol.
Any chance this hole has been caused by the recent sun blast?
Mike says:
“The fact the greenhouse effect warms the surface while cooling the stratosphere has long been known and is a major reason we know that recent warming is not part of a natural cycle or caused by changes in solar output.”
Mike, do you have a source or reference for your statement above?
And, how does CO2 know which way is up?
PB-in-AL says:
9. Invest in Coppertone; we’ll need LOTS of it
I realize your point is sarcastic. However on several green sites, I’ve seen “ozone depletion” supposedly linked with increased sunburns, increased skin cancers, and increased cataracts. This always made me wonder, who goes sunbathing in the polar regions where “ozone depletion” occurs?
“The evidence is overwhelming that manufacturers are creating excess HFC-23 simply to destroy it and earn carbon credits,” said Mark Roberts of the Environmental Investigation Agency, a research and advocacy group. “This is the biggest environmental scandal in history and makes an absolute mockery of international efforts to combat climate change.”
So when these manufactures are getting paid to destroy these chemicals, who is paying the funds?
The UN?
The US?
Others?
“In the long term the ozone layer will recover thanks to extensive environmental policy measures enacted for its protection.” – I hope they don’t break an arm patting themselves on the back. Never mistake correlation for causation. I was playing around at the Green building at MIT when they first came up with the idea. I am still agnostic on CFCs. I will accept it as a hypothesis whose validity remains to be proven. I suppose we can also see the size of the Antarctic hole and make some deductions. If that hole is growing too, even though the temperatures are not heading into 30 year lows, then it is likely not the temperature.
“I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”
– James Lovelock
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock/print
I bet this won’t be the last time where we read where one of the ozone holes gets bigger. I sense a natural factor…