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
Pamela Gray says:
March 16, 2011 at 5:07 am
Good heavens Mike (Mike says: March 15, 2011 at 10:45 pm), you just scored one for the opposition.
++++++++++
Mike often opens his mouth to change feet. This is one of those days.
Having got to the end of the crazy posts today I am no longer sure what Mike believes, other than CO2 causes global warming, which exists, and which we caused, and that is just how it is.
My neighbour in Waterloo, Prof Lu, is onto something and so was Dobson. Seek more and ye shall find.
I appreciated the debunking of the origin date of ‘the hole’. The scam re overproduction of chemicals the Chinese are being paid to destroy is true, to the tune of $2.7 billion. The communists are thanking God for the Montreal Protocol. At least Montreal got famous for something other than Olympean debt.
Being an avid follower of “Watts up”, it seems pretty apparent that there are mechanisms involving an oscillation of sea ice between the poles. In addition it seems that ozone loss is related to the cold rather than any human means. Correlation is seen as causation when it has not been established. When the Arctic is warm then Europe and the United States are cold. The opposite then occurs. Rather than polar amplification, it seems to be a natural cycle. Steven Goddard has done an excellent job of going over Google documents and finding instances of climate alarmism in papers dating back over a hundred years. They all point to these cycles of polar shifts in temps/sea ice and arctic oscillations. If it is apparent to me as a layperson, I wonder what could be done to find a pattern with the old articles.
Perhaps Willis would be able to take the warming and cooling articles and graph them to follow temperature swings and establish some sort of relationship. I would offer but I am not as proficient with these things. Just a thought among millions.
It is all our fault. We are all going to die.
Stephen Wilde says:
March 16, 2011 at 2:39 am
~
Stephen did you take a look at this?
~
David L. Hagen says:
March 15, 2011 at 8:06 am
Q.-B. Lu predicted this would happen in Correlation between Cosmic Rays and Ozone Depletion
This Letter reports reliable satellite data in the period of 1980–2007 covering two full 11-yr cosmic ray (CR) cycles, clearly showing the correlation between CRs and ozone depletion, especially the polar ozone loss (hole) over Antarctica. The results provide strong evidence of the physical mechanism that the CR driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules plays the dominant role in causing the ozone hole. Moreover, this mechanism predicts one of the severest ozone losses in 2008–2009 and probably another large hole around 2019–2020, according to the 11-yr CR cycle.
PRL 102, 118501 (2009) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, 20 MARCH 2009 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.118501
The unusually low solar cycle transition between Cycles 23 – 24 may have further contributed to this. Worth comparing these two theories.
~
Anyone here care to address this statement from the above abstract.
“””The results provide strong evidence of the physical mechanism that the CR driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules plays the dominant role in causing the ozone hole.”””
Mercury satellitie is in the news:
NASA Probe to Investigate Enduring Mysteries of Mercury
by Charles Q. Choi, SPACE.com Contributor
Date: 16 March 2011 Time: 08:00 AM ET
http://www.space.com/11136-nasa-mercury-mysteries-messenger-spacecraft.html
NASA’s Messenger spacecraft will make history tomorrow (March 17) when it becomes the first probe to orbit the planet Mercury. But it also promises to help solve a host of mysteries about the solar system’s innermost planet…
Huh, Mercury is only about 66 solar radii, from the sun. Wonder about its ionization ring current cavity it orbits through and the huge reconnection flux tubes interacting with Mercurys magnetic field.
Magnetic Tornadoes Could Liberate Mercury’s Tenuous Atmosphere
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/multimedia/magnetic_tornadoes.html
memoryvault says:
March 16, 2011 at 1:10 am
It has been awhile since I wrote my chemistry term paper in college about the ozone hole. The theory kept changing. The last I knew of was PSC’s were causing the O3 to breakdown. Don’t remember now what the P was, but stratospheric chlorine were the others I think.
Since chlorine is being vented from the volcanoes in Antartica it all was a natual event. Plus we have gotten our measuring devices better so as we get better the hole grows. The ozone hole was a scam.
I’m with Al Cooper – all this talk about CFC, etc., is so much nonsense. Ozone is naturally unstable: at -50C its half life is 3 months so you would expect that in the polar winter when the sun goes down below the horizon the ozone would start to disappear. Hence the ozone hole. End of story.
“”””” Mike says:
March 15, 2011 at 6:00 pm
George E. Smith says:
March 15, 2011 at 2:59 pm “We have pretty good evidence, that any and every single molecule of H2O that is added to the earth’s atmosphere, anywhere on earth, at any altitude must result in a reduction of the amount of solar spectrum energy that reaches the earth surface to get stored in either the deep oceans, or the rocks or urban heat islands, or even in the interstices of snow covered ice. that in the long run shoulkd lead to a cooler earth.”
George: You have presented no evidence for this claim. You have no evidence for this claim. The claim is patently false. H2O in vapor form is a major greenhouse gas as even the most adamant skeptics admit; indeed they even use this to falsely argue the CO2 level does not matter. “””””
Mike, given YOUR response to MY post, I am ; lacking evidence to the contrary (which you have not presented), going to presume that you are an ESL person, writing under a pseudonym. I’m also going to presume, that you are a new visitor to WUWT, so you have not read other things I have posted here. So please excuse me, if my response here is addressed to the level of those ten year olds, who do such a wonderful job, on “Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader ?” Even my ESL wife can keep up with those students.
So let’s start here with this assertion of yours:- “”””” George: You have presented no evidence for this claim. You have no evidence for this claim. “””””
For the first part of this incorrect statement, I will simply let you search the archives of WUWT, where you will find, on numerous occasions, that I have indeed presented evidence for this claim. That fact; and it is a fact, is prima facie evidence that your second assertion; that I have no evidence for this claim, must also be incorrect.
As to what I asserted; that you claim is “patently false.” , to whit:- “”””” “We have pretty good evidence, that any and every single molecule of H2O that is added to the earth’s atmosphere, anywhere on earth, at any altitude must result in a reduction of the amount of solar spectrum energy that reaches the earth surface to get stored in either the deep oceans, or the rocks or urban heat islands, or even in the interstices of snow covered ice. “””””
Note we are discussing :- “”””” solar spectrum energy that reaches the earth surface “””””
I draw your attention to “The Infrared Handbook.” ISBN: 0-9603590-1-x , or Library of Congress Catalog Card No: 77-90786 published by the Infrared Information Analysis Center (ERIM), of the Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, for the Office of Naval Research, Department of the Navy, Washington DC. That should be enough information for you to retrieve that “Evidence” so often cited by me at WUWT.
Specifically in Chapter (3) on Natural Sources (of Radiation) (3.4) The Sun. On page 3-34 you will find their fig 3-6; “Spectral Distribution curves related to the sun”; note the plurality of curve(s).
One of those curves is the extra-terrestrial spectrum of the sun’s Electro-magnetifc radiation energy, as it arrives at earth’s orbit; the so-called “air-mass zero” solar spectrum; that being the major energy input to the earth weather/climate system.
A second curve gives the sea level solar energy spectrum with the sun at Zenith; the so-called “air mass one” solar spectrum. It clearly indicates, that less solar energy reaches the earth’s sea level surface, than arrives at the top of earth’s extreme atmosphere.
Prominent among the discrepancies as to why the air mass one energy is less than the air mass zero energy are a number of spectral absorption bands that are specifically due to H2O molecules that are in the earth’s atmosphere, somewhere from pole to pole, and somewhere in altitude; “”””” anywhere on earth, at any altitude “””””, as I previously stated.
Those spectral absorption bands commence at around 700 nm wavelength, and proceed (on this graph) out to 3.2 microns wavelength; but other such plots can be found that continue on to and beyond 4.0 microns. Only 1% of the total solar spectrum energy (the subject of this discussion) lies at wavelengths longer than 4.0 microns, and about 46.897% of the total (standard) solar air mass zero spectrum energy falls at shorter wavelengths than 700 nm. Using standard subtractive arithmatic; it can be deduced that 52.103% of the solar spectrum air mass zero energy lies between 700 nm and 4.0 microns; and the second curve cited shows that approximately half of that total spectral range, is covered by H2O (aka “water”) molecular absorption bands; so one can reasoanbly expect that something like 20% of the total solar spectrum energy can be absorbed by H2O molecules (aka water) in the average atmosphere.
Moreover, a detailed examination of the graphed water absorption bands; or you can generate your own from Spectralcalc; shows that not all of these H2O molecular absorption bands, are fully saturated for a global average atmospheric H2O abundance. At this point to be conservative, and not overstate the case, I would put a +/-50% possible error guard band around that 52.103 % of solar energy absorbed by atmospheric H2O.
Now since these H2O molecular absorption bands, are not all saturated, it is a consequence of Beer’s Law, that the injection of any further H2O molecules:- “”””” any and every single molecule of H2O that is added to the earth’s atmosphere “”””” as previously stated would INCREASE the amount of that solar spectrum energy that is removed from the incoming energy supplied by the sun, and DOES NOT reach the ground:- “”””” must result in a reduction of the amount of solar spectrum energy that reaches the earth surface “””””
Beer’s Law does not provide for a decrease in the amount of absorption, when MORE of an absorbing species, is added; nor does it provide for no change at all, when the amount of an absorbing species is added.
Well Mike (or whatever your real name is), I think I have already disproved your assertion that:- “”””” George: You have presented no evidence for this claim. “”””” ; check the archives for yourself, or simply use the above as a reasonable facsimile of what I have prevbiously, on may occasions, posted.
I also have disproved your second assertion:- “”””” You have no evidence for this claim. “””””, which is, and always has been falsified by the above; and now it is UP TO YOU to prove YOUR ASSERTION :- “”””” The claim is patently false. “””””
You yourself, are guilty of providing no evidence for your assertion; you even offered us this:- “”””” H2O in vapor form is a major greenhouse gas as even the most adamant skeptics admit; “””””
Perhaps “Mike” you can enlighten all of us by forming a logical link between this:- “”””” any and every single molecule of H2O that is added to the earth’s atmosphere, anywhere on earth, at any altitude must result in a reduction of the amount of solar spectrum energy that reaches the earth surface “”””” Which was my statement that you objected to; and this:- “”””” The claim is patently false. H2O in vapor form is a major greenhouse gas as even the most adamant skeptics admit; “””””
Which is ALL that YOU provided to support your assertion of the “patent falsity” of my statement.
What on earth do green house gases have to do with solar spectrum energy from the sun ?
So Mike, it is up to you to provide evidence to justify your simply indefensible assertion that my statement is “”””” Patently false “””””
But I suggest first an intensive course in Remedial English; so that you can properly understand that which you are reading; and not assign incorrect meanings to that which others (including me) have written here at WUWT.
I rest my case.
English is a quite disticntive language. It draws on the richness of many other languages; and as a result, it is possible to state quite definitively in English, things we may not even be communicable in some other languages.
For example:- most languages would be able to say something that means about the same as:-
“He had a reason for saying that.”
What about this:- “He had to have had a reason for saying that. ”
So if your first language allows you to state both of those ideas, and clearly distinguish between them;l then count yourself lucky as having a flexible language.
I go to great pains in what I write (here at WUWT or anywhere else); so I susually mean exactly what I write; hey give me a break Chasmod, I do occasionally make typeos.
So if readers choose of their own volition to substitute OTHER WORDS in place of MY WORDS, then I can only caution; IN OTHER WORDS, LIE OTHER MEANINGS.
So do yourselves a favor; use MY words, if you want to understand what I said. What I SAID, may NOT always be correct; but it almost always will be WHAT I MEANT TO SAY. That is by far the safest default assumption.
As an appendix to the above I should add; the above cited numerical data excerpted from the “Infrared Handbook” is based on experimental observations that took place sometime earlier than the two most recent NASA Vandenberg AFB launch crashes, and therefore the data is based on a best value for the extra-terrestrial TSI of 1353 Watts per metre squared; which is now updated to about 1362 watts per meter squared. Any discrepancies between my cited numbers, and the most current ones should easily fall with in the error band limits of +/- 50% as cureently applicable to IPCC climate predictions; excuse me; make that projections.
Also arithmatic, and arithmetic can be considered to be synonymous for the purposes of the above post.
Thanks Carla. I am aware of those bits of data and lots more that may be relevant.
At the moment I am just setting out what appears to happen. There are many possibilities (perhaps in combination) that would explain HOW it can happen but I am not in a position to choose between them at present.
Various contributors to this site have expressed ideas that would fit nicely. Some others are on a similar track but may need to make some adjustments.
Indeed I may have to make adjustments when new data comes to light but I don’t think I am far out.
wow all I see is hundreds of ignorant commenters above me who don’t understand the science one bit but feel qualified to assume the paper must be wrong.
onion2, that last statement…
“wow all I see is hundreds of ignorant commenters above me who don’t understand the science one bit but feel qualified to assume the paper must be wrong.”
…is somewhat lacking in content related to the topic, as well as debate technique, but I give you props for using the word “commenters”. For some reason, when I use that word, that little squiggly line shows up underneath. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Pam G;
That’s just your dikshunary lacking info; right click and select “add to dictionary” and it will then be prop’ly eddicated!
😉
[Snip. Calling people here “deniers” gets your comments deleted. ~dbs, mod.]
I may not fully understand the science as well as some of the others on this thread, but I can tell the difference in the various arguments between something that makes sense and baloney; and you, onion2, Mike, and you other warmistas are simply full of baloney.
No Larry you can’t tell the difference between “making sense” and baloney. You are doing it wrong. You might all think you have some kind of genetic trait that makes you able to determine if a scientific study is valid, but trust me you don’t.
You just all arrogantly wade into the study as if it’s “obviously wrong”.
Oh look they say arctic stratospheric cooling facilitated the ozone loss. Yes for baloney droids that doesn’t make sense. But for anyone whose bothered to understand the mechanism for CFC ozone depletion that makes 100% sense.
The “Best Science Blog”, by popular vote, cannot even muster someone qualified to comment on this paper, but feels it must give a snide opinion anyway. The quality of the commenters is a measure of the quality of the blog.
onion2
The “Best Science Blog”, by popular vote, also probably cannot even muster someone qualified to comment on whether, in reality, the Coyote should eventually catch the Roadrunner, or Yosemite Sam’s consistently overwhelming firepower should defeat Bugs Bunny.
And there’s a reason for that, onion2.
Sunlight + O2 = ozone: – NO sunlight or NO O2 = NO ozone.
NH approaching winter = diminishing sunlight = diminishing ozone.
It’s as simple as that.
What part of “observable natural phenomenon” don’t you understand?
And just who exactly would qualify as “someone suitably qualified” to point out a blindingly obvious, observable, natural phenomenon which renders the above paper’s “mechanism for CFC ozone depletion” to 100% nonsense?
Larry:
Stick with your common sense.
If it reads like it is baloney it probably is.
mod
[Snip. Calling people here “deniers” gets your comments deleted. ~dbs, mod.]
So the whole comment is removed, I guess that’s easier than addressing the points !
I note such rules don’t apply the other way the phase “alarmist” appears in about every second post. I also note a much shorter and empty answer used this word and was not deleted, was what I stated so difficult to answer that you had to use such a weak excuse to remove it.
[Reply: Yes, the whole comment was removed. Read the site Policy. That’s how I moderate anyone who calls people here “deniers,” “denialists,” or anything related to Holocaust deniers. Other moderators may just snip the pejorative, it’s their call. I snip the entire comment to make a point. Once is usually sufficient. ~dbs, mod.]
Dan
Since you didn’t repeat your points (without the offensive D word), I guess we will never know.
However I think it would be safe to assume it’s even worse than we thought.
memoryvault: not a problem what I said with the offending word changed to the word Horseradish (I trust there is no connection between Horseradishes and the Holocaust) I kept it because it’s not the first time my replies here have been removed.
Start—
To paraphrase the opening line of the story
Say what? There isn’t much that surprises me anymore in the rarefied air that is Horseradish
Polar ozone depletion is complicated by the extreme cold over the polar regions where the average temp at 20km is -90c, at certain periods through the year colder, the claim that this is a record I also find odd, given the number of times I’ve seen the temperature data referenced to with statements such as “there isn’t enough data” that is a record that goes back 130 years. The “record loss” here relates to a record that only goes back to the 80s when the British Antarctic Survey data shows the first holes forming.
(their full data set goes back to the 50s when they first installed the Dobson instrument that measure ozone, their data shows no holes prior to the 70s over Antarctica)
(strange you don’t seem to have mentioned that either)
I really don’t get this sad attempt to try and discredit this science, it is solid cause and effect (No hole, add CFC’s ozone drops, reduce CFC’s ozone recovers) pretty simple.
and the recovery is a documented fact
http://www.theozonehole.com/images/111ozone-20060830-graph-browse.jpg
I also note you fail to mention global ozone levels that are not affected by polar cold, they have been recovering steadily since the late 90’s i.e. after the Madrid protocol came into effect. (see graph above)
But I guess mentioning that would ruin the anti science point you are trying to push here.
End—
As to the offending word I make no connection to the Holocaust, I connect the word to it’s meaning as a psychological condition, a term brought in long before the Holocaust, by Freud. What I see in the comments above is not what I would call skepticism I see insults, rudeness and hostility and frankly the ‘offending’ word is a far better fit.
Dan,
Well it seems that we are destined to forever disagree because:
1) There are no “holes” – there are periods of the year when there is less ozone, which occurs as a natural phenomenon that has existed pretty-much forever, so talk of “holes not existing prior to the 70’s” is poppycock on two counts.
2) There is no physical “layer” – a Dobson Unit is a measurement from ground level to the outer atmosphere. The total count of detected ozone molecules is then ASSUMED as a layer at sea at 0 degrees. It is true that most this ozone occurs at the outer reaches. However this is simply the result of aforementioned natural phenomenon having the best opportunity of occurring there, being the first place sunlight and O2 meet.
You may feel we are only dealing with semantics here and that a “hole” and “depletion” mean much the same thing. However, we now have two generations; our young adults (possibly even you), and those currently in school, who have been led to believe the “ozone layer” is a magical, mystical, natural, fragile “barrier” that exists and has existed for all time and only now is threatened by the activities of man/bear/pig.
3) The bulk of atmospheric ozone occurs as a result of incoming sunlight meeting uprising oxygen (O2). The sun don’t shine over the Polar regions during their winters. Hence NO sunlight = NO ozone. No complex explanation required.
This is why one can confidently predict scare stories about the NH “hole” in March, while down here in OZ it’s in September. That’s because those months are the beginning of our respective Springs (end of Winter) when the perfectly naturally occurring seasonal depletion would be EXPECTED to be at its maximum.
It seems to me if there’s any horseradish going on here it lies with someone such as yourself who chooses to ignore such a simple, observable explanation, of a naturally occurring phenomenon, and chooses instead to put your faith in an unobserved (outside of the lab), almost impossible to replicate under even lab controlled conditions (it took about 20 years to sort-of duplicate it – and even those results are now under a cloud – see link in an earlier post), which doesn’t fit the observable facts anyway, just so you can hang the highly implausible result on man/bear/pig.
I might just add here that your proffered link to “proof” of a connection between CFC’s and ozone depletion shows no such thing. It is a graph of the correlation between atmospheric Chlorine and Ozone. It is purely an assertion (and a rather increasingly tenuous one at that) by you and others, that CFC’s were/are responsible for the Chlorine. Besides, as is so often repeated on this site, correlation doesn’t establish causation.
4) Your claims of “no holes prior to the 70’s”, and “recovering holes since CFC’s were banned” are also related poppycock. In his book “Exploring the Atmosphere” which was one of my textbooks in 1966, Professor Dobson wrote extensively about Polar ozone depletion (what you erroneously call a “hole”) in the winter at Antarctica – he had gone there expecting it, in fact, relying on it to help establish his theory of upper-atmospheric air circulation.
He also wrote extensively about the apparent three to seven year cycles of size variation whereby the depletion gets bigger every winter for three to seven years and then for some reason drops to its former levels. Professor Dobson had no explanation for this and neither do I, but it sure as hell wasn’t CFC’s.
5) To accept what you claim means one must also accept that Professor Dobson decided to invent a method of ozone density detection for no particular reason, went down to Antarctica in 1957 with his equipment on a whim, discovered pretty much nothing since at that time there was nothing to discover, came home and was awarded the “International Geophysical Man of the Year” award for his efforts, and wrote a book about the atmosphere that included conditions that were not going to be “discovered” for over a decade because they didn’t exist at the time.
Maybe he had a crystal ball.
Horseradish anyone?
Memoryvault: Sorry I sometime forget the pedantic nature of Horseradish
The term hole is a generic one used even by scientists, it is in fact a thinning which not meaning to be rude, is clearly shown in the graph (or the ozone % would be zero) the worst of this is the Antarctic hole which gets down to a little above 30%.
As to what the graph shows yes the top panel does show chlorine, but the bottom panel shows the percentage of ozone and it shows the slow recovery of global ozone.
2) Sorry but again the term ozone layer is widely used, you are correct on the measurement using a Dobson, (some ozone can even be found at ground level) but the main effect is around 20km (although it is still very thin) and much below this ozone is for all intense purposes zero.
“However, we now have two generations; our young adults (possibly even you)”
Thanks, but I’m in my late 40s and have worked for the AAP climate research section since late 80s we were involved in the early research into this and regardless of the nonsense on blogs there is nothing wrong with the science.
That ozones values fell over both Halley and Faraday is a fact supported by the data.
As to Dobson, sorry he didn’t go to Antarctica, as I said above he was around 70 in 1956 when the instrument was installed. His instrument was no longer linked to him but had become used around the world for research into the then little understood region of the atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._R._Ramanathan
In the same way a contempory of his, Fabry’s instrument the Fabry Pérot spectrometer is used today
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/science/ice-ocean-atmosphere-and-climate/space-and-atmospheric-research/space-environment-and-weather/studying-the-thermosphere-with-fabry-perot-spectrometers
4) “Your claims of “no holes prior to the 70’s””
Sorry again they are not my claims they are the claims of BAS (British Antarctic Survey) supported by the data from the two Dobson units
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/journalists/resources/science/ozone.php
The Aus Govt still also monitor ozone as part of WMO data set.
http://www.bom.gov.au/inside/oeb/atmoswatch/aboutozone.shtml
Your claims about the textbook are your own, as I said in the last comment you claim to have had this as a high school textbook, yet it is a university entry level textbook.
Then there’s this:
“Professor Dobson wrote extensively about Polar ozone depletion (what you erroneously call a “hole”) in the winter at Antarctica”
For info the ozone ‘hole’ forms in spring not winter, you can check that anywhere.
That says as much about your comments as anything!
5) Your downward spiral continues
“International Geophysical Man of the Year” (feel free to post any real reference to such an award and Dobson winning it, but I think I will be waiting a long time.)
Sorry never heard of such an award, the only hit I got from Google on the name was this forum, and as I said Dobson was not on that expedition, as stated above. by 1956 he was near 70 (he was born in 1889), and for info as someone who actually does know about Antarctica, Halley (then called Halley Bay) was founded in 1956 for the IGY, so the station itself had to be built, even today it is doubtful someone of that age would be allowed to go as even with modern ships and aircraft and a modern air conditioned station life there is difficult, in 1956 it would have been far more basic. So please stop making up your details, it’s painful to watch.
As to why the instrument was run: Science ‘pure’ science gathers basic data instruments once set up can run for years or decades to increase data sets, as these were at the time little understood areas, there are similar instruments that also monitor magnetic field and other aspects of the atmosphere they cost little to run and add to a global data set of other instruments. We, (Australia) have several instruments of this type Magnetometers and Riometers for instance and Cosmic Ray data sets, that date back to the 50s as well, our Muon telescope (2 in fact) were in operation from 1955 onwards, at Mawson station, which opened in 1954)