Ozone hole "…caused a great deal of the climate change that's been observed"

2010 "ozone hole" Image: NASA

Columbia engineering study links ozone hole to climate change all the way to the equator

First time that ozone depletion is shown to impact the entire circulation of the southern hemisphere

In a study to be published in the April 21st issue of Science magazine, researchers at Columbia University’s School of Engineering and Applied Science report their findings that the ozone hole, which is located over the South Pole, has affected the entire circulation of the Southern Hemisphere all the way to the equator. While previous work has shown that the ozone hole is changing the atmospheric flow in the high latitudes, the Columbia Engineering paper, “Impact of Polar Ozone Depletion on Subtropical Precipitation,” demonstrates that the ozone hole is able to influence the tropical circulation and increase rainfall at low latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere. This is the first time that ozone depletion, an upper atmospheric phenomenon confined to the polar regions, has been linked to climate change from the Pole to the equator.

“The ozone hole is not even mentioned in the summary for policymakers issued with the last IPCC report,” noted Lorenzo M. Polvani, Professor of Applied Mathematics and of Earth & Environmental Sciences, Senior Research Scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, and co-author of the paper. “We show in this study that it has large and far-reaching impacts. The ozone hole is a big player in the climate system!”

“It’s really amazing that the ozone hole, located so high up in the atmosphere over Antarctica, can have an impact all the way to the tropics and affect rainfall there — it’s just like a domino effect,” said Sarah Kang, Postdoctoral Research Scientist in Columbia Engineering’s Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics and lead author of the paper.

The ozone hole is now widely believed to have been the dominant agent of atmospheric circulation changes in the Southern Hemisphere in the last half century. This means, according to Polvani and Kang, that international agreements about mitigating climate change cannot be confined to dealing with carbon alone— ozone needs to be considered, too. “This could be a real game-changer,” Polvani added.

Located in the Earth’s stratosphere, just above the troposphere (which begins on Earth’s surface), the ozone layer absorbs most of the Sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. Over the last half-century, widespread use of manmade compounds, especially household and commercial aerosols containing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), has significantly and rapidly broken down the ozone layer, to a point where a hole in the Antarctic ozone layer was discovered in the mid 1980s. Thanks to the 1989 Montreal Protocol, now signed by 196 countries, global CFC production has been phased out. As a result, scientists have observed over the past decade that ozone depletion has largely halted and they now expect it to fully reverse, and the ozone hole to close by midcentury.

But, as Polvani has said, “While the ozone hole has been considered as a solved problem, we’re now finding it has caused a great deal of the climate change that’s been observed.” So, even though CFCs are no longer being added to the atmosphere, and the ozone layer will recover in the coming decades, the closing of the ozone hole will have a considerable impact on climate. This shows that through international treaties such as the Montreal Protocol, which has been called the single most successful international agreement to date, human beings are able to make changes to the climate system.

Together with colleagues at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, BC, Kang and Polvani used two different state-of-the-art climate models to show the ozone hole effect. They first calculated the atmospheric changes in the models produced by creating an ozone hole. They then compared these changes with the ones that have been observed in the last few decades: the close agreement between the models and the observations shows that ozone has likely been responsible for the observed changes in Southern Hemisphere.

This important new finding was made possible by the international collaboration of the Columbia University scientists with Canadian colleagues. Model results pertaining to rainfall are notoriously difficult to calculate with climate models, and a single model is usually not sufficient to establish credible results. By joining hands and comparing results from two independent models, the scientists obtained solid results.

Kang and Polvani plan next to study extreme precipitation events, which are associated with major floods, mudslides, etc. “We really want to know,” said Kang, “if and how the closing of the ozone hole will affect these.”

###

This study was funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation to Columbia University.

Columbia Engineering

Columbia University’s Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science, founded in 1864, offers programs in nine departments to both undergraduate and graduate students. With facilities specifically designed and equipped to meet the laboratory and research needs of faculty and students, Columbia Engineering is home to NSF-NIH funded centers in genomic science, molecular nanostructures, materials science, and energy, as well as one of the world’s leading programs in financial engineering. These interdisciplinary centers are leading the way in their respective fields while individual groups of engineers and scientists collaborate to solve some of society’s more vexing challenges. http://www.engineering.columbia.edu/

===============================================================

Impact of Polar Ozone Depletion on Subtropical Precipitation

Kang et al 2011, Science Express

Abstract:

Over the past half-century, the ozone hole has caused a

poleward shift of the extratropical westerly jet in the

Southern Hemisphere. Here, we argue that these

extratropical circulation changes, resulting from ozone

depletion, have substantially contributed to subtropical

precipitation changes. Specifically, we show that

precipitation in the Southern subtropics in austral

summer increases significantly when climate models are

integrated with reduced polar ozone concentrations.

Furthermore, the observed patterns of subtropical

precipitation change, from 1979 to 2000, are very similar

to those in our model integrations, where ozone depletion

alone is prescribed. In both climate models and

observations, the subtropical moistening is linked to a

poleward shift of the extratropical westerly jet. Our

results highlight the importance of polar regions on the

subtropical hydrological cycle.

Fig. 4. Mechanism linking the ozone hole to subtropical

precipitation change. Shading is the zonal-mean response in

austral summer of (A and D), temperature (in K), (B and E),

zonal wind (in m s–1), and (C and F), mean meridional mass

streamfunction (in 109 kg s–1). Black solid contours in (A) and

(D) are the mean temperatures, and red dashed lines indicate

the tropopause height in the reference integrations; the arrows

illustrate the lifting of tropopause in response to ozone

depletion. Black solid (dashed) contours in (B) and (E) are

the mean westerlies (easterlies) in the reference integrations,

and the arrows illustrate the direction of extratropical

westerly jet shift. Black solid (dashed) contours in (C) and (F)

are the clockwise (counter-clockwise) mean meridional

circulation in the reference integrations, and the arrows

illustrate the direction of anomalous vertical motion induced

by ozone depletion. Top row: the coupled CMAM

integrations [experiment (i)]. Bottom row: the uncoupled

CAM3 integrations with ozone depletion confined to 40-90°S

[experiment (iv)].

Full paper here: Kang-04-22-11 (PDF)

Supplemental material: kangSOM110422 (PDF)

=========================================================

UPDATE: BTW, in case anybody cares, this post went up 30 minutes AFTER the media embargo was lifted at 14:00 EST April 21. Compare that to the big argument going on over the Nisbet report. I have to agree with Keith Kloor on this one. Breaking embargoes is not only unprofessional, it is a fast track to excluding oneself from receiving any further media pre-releases. – Anthony

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
David, UK

Wow, it’s a wonder we’ve survived on this fragile planet this long.
[/sarc]

So it’s not CO2? Who knew.

Clearly what is needed now is a study showing that a higher atmospheric concentration of CO2 is essential to further repair of the ozone hole.

TomRude

Gillett (Nathan) the best a Man can Get? hum hum…
Another sucked out of a finger stuff.
Lu 2009 in Physical Review Letters is much more convincing and not a hot bed of warmistas from BC…

Mike Bromley

That outta put a spanner in the works!

Sean

Is there another cause and effect problem? Could the observed circulation patterns lead to higher or lower ozone levels each spring rather than the other way around?

Rob Potter

I was interested to see what data they had used to come to this conclusions, then I saw that it was based on tow new climate models and I am afraid I stopped reading…….

mkelly

“to a point where a hole in the Antarctic ozone layer was discovered in the mid 1980s.” Horse hockey. Dobson found hole in 1956 I think.
“A dobson unit is the most basic measure used in ozone research. The unit is named after G.M.B. Dobson, one of the first scientists to investigate atmospheric ozone (~1920 – 1960). He designed the ‘Dobson Spectrometer’ – the standard instrument used to measure ozone from the ground. The Dobson spectrometer measures the intensity of solar UV radiation at four wavelengths, two of which are absorbed by ozone and two of which are not.”
http://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/dobson.html

Over the past half-century, the ozone hole has caused a poleward shift of the extratropical westerly jet in the Southern Hemisphere.
I challenge this assumption.
According to this paper on the “Final Warming Date of the Antarctic Polar Vortex and Influences on its Interannual Variability”;
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7598/is_20091115/ai_n42654411/
“several studies (including Waugh and Randel 1999; Waugh et al. 1999; Karpetchko et al. 2005; Black and McDaniel 2007) have indicated a trend over the 1980s and 1990s toward a later vortex breakdown.”
This is a good paper exploring the Polar Vortices;
http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/waugh+polvani-PlumbFestVolume-2010.pdf
and the chart on page 10 shows the vortex break-up dates for the Northern Hemisphere since 1960 and Southern Hemisphere since 1979.
I think it is more likely that the Antarctic Polar Vortex, particularly when it coalesces into a single funnel during the Polar Winter and when it breaks down in the Spring, is the cause, the ozone hole and jet shifts are probably just effects…

Jim Masterson

I have several comments:
1. The ozone hole was seen first when they developed instrumentation capable of seeing it. They have no idea if the ozone hole predates the instrumentality.
2. Chloride ions seem to be the biggest offenders. On a planet with seas full of chloride ions, I find it amazing that they are so sure that no mechanism exists to get a very tiny amount of ocean chlorides to the stratosphere.
3. Formic acid is also suppose to cause ozone depletion, but that would shift the blame from humans to insects.
4. Once the ozone hole supposedly fills in and subtropical precipitation decreases, can we blame them for the droughts it will cause?
Jim

Sorry, I cannot get excited about this. The results are based on the output of models. Even though they get “the right answer”, I dont believe the output of non-validated models. Then, from what I can gather, it is unlikely that the ozone hole was caused by pollution. When the hole was first discovered, no-one bothered to ask how long it had been there; it was simply assumed to be man made. Despite the cessation of the use of CFCs etc. the ozone hole has not changed much. It is more likely to be caused by the southern polar vortex.

Gary

They then compared these changes with the ones that have been observed in the last few decades: the close agreement between the models and the observations shows that ozone has likely been responsible for the observed changes in Southern Hemisphere.

Correlation isn’t good enough. What does “likely” mean?

Dodgy Geezer

Last I heard, there was a paper claiming that the original research blaming CFCs for the ‘Ozone hole’ had major errors in it, and it was unlikely that Man had anything to do with the hole at all……

Bill in Vigo

Just curious here but hasn’t most of the CFCs been produced in the northern hemisphere and used there? If so wouldn’t the larger hole in the Ozone layer be in the Northern polar regions. I must be missing something due to not understanding how the currents are in the atmosphere. I truly wonder CFCs mostly produced and used in the northern hemisphere would produce the problems in the southern hemisphere.
Bill Derryberry
PS I am not being sark I just really don’t know or understand.
B

anonymous
jorgekafkazar

“It’s really amazing that the ozone hole, located so high up in the atmosphere over Antarctica, can have an impact all the way to the tropics and affect rainfall there…”
Unbelievable, in fact.
“Model results pertaining to rainfall are notoriously difficult to calculate with climate models, and a single model is usually not sufficient to establish credible results. By joining hands and comparing results from two independent models, the scientists obtained solid results….”
Model results are difficult to calculate with models. Who knew? But two models! Now you’re cookin’! Now we’ve got solid results! Not as good as robust, you understand, but still very, very good. And two independent models joining hands? Whoa-ho! They’re going to sing kumbaya, folks.

Wil

This is a total disaster – what about Al Gore’s green money he needs to keep his waterfront mansions fashionable? What about the poor third world dictators needing money for mansions in France? Money for their AK-47s? Money for their new limousines? Now how’s a poor third world dictator to make a living?
And what about all those poor AGW government funded “scientists” needing government funded programs to make ends meet in difficult financial times? All those government funded universities with their free government AGW handouts? Now what’s Obama supposed to do with all his green programs?
This is terrible news. Hey, we got windmills in construction all over North America. No, no, no – this report MUST be condemned as religious heresy at all cost. Too much money at stake to accept this – has the AGW community threatened beheading yet?

Martin Brumby

“This study was funded by a grant from blah blah blah”
Just so long as someone keeps on throwing money at ’em, they’ll ‘prove’ the ozone hole / CO2 / whatever-is-in-fashion was ‘likely’ the cause of whatever ‘might be’ worse than you thunk.
They have their computer models well trained.
Tap in “hemorrhoids” and “Dodo” and it automatically produces a paper showing that, contrary to what was previously thought, it was actually hemorrhoids that caused the tragic demise of the Dodo.
For an extra bag of money, they’ll do more ‘research’ to prove that hemorrhoids also caused the heatwave in Russia in 2010.
It’s tough being a “Scientist”. But someone has to do it!
\sarc.

Jim G

Dodgy Geezer says:
April 21, 2011 at 12:17 pm
“Last I heard, there was a paper claiming that the original research blaming CFCs for the ‘Ozone hole’ had major errors in it, and it was unlikely that Man had anything to do with the hole at all……”
I’m old enough to recall back in the 70’s all the hoo-ha about my Right Guard deoderant causing the hole in the ozone and freon being deadly for the ozone layer, yata, yata, yata. So, now that we don’t use that stuff, how come we still have a hole in the ozone? I suspect all of this CO2 clap-trap will go in the same direction in a few years. Science is absolutely dead as far as I am concerned. Where are all those idiots now that were pissin and moanin about the ozone back then? I suppose that any of them still around are on this new Climate Disruption band-wagon.

This is what we let them get away with before…
• “…civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind,” biologist George Wald, Harvard University, April 19, 1970.
• By 1995, “…somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.
• Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor “…the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born,” Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.
• The world will be “…eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age,” Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970.
• “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” biologist Barry Commoner, University of Washington, writing in the journal Environment, April 1970.
• “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from the intolerable deteriorations and possible extinction,” The New York Times editorial, April 20, 1970.
• “By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…” Life magazine, January 1970.
• “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970.
• “…air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone,” Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970.
• Ehrlich also predicted that in 1973, 200,000 Americans would die from air pollution, and that by 1980 the life expectancy of Americans would be 42 years.
• “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” Earth Day organizer Denis Hayes, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.
• “By the year 2000…the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine,” Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.

mikemUK

Oh dear!
Does this mean the science isn’t settled after all?
That’s going to upset quite a few people, after what they have previously stated in public ad nauseum.

TerrySkinner

Another climate model which allegedly correctly fits with what has already happened to the climate. What we need is a climate model which correctly forecasts what happens next. That is the test. It is the failure of the gloom and doom forecasts over the past decade that has done most to discredit the whole AGW bandwagon. Reports like this, to have any scientific validity should include clear predictions which can be tested over the next few years and decades.
What strikes me as off already is the mismatch between Ozone Hole not now getting any bigger (or so far any smaller?) but the alleged reversal of the effects of the Ozone hole over the past decade. How does that work?

Latitude

demonstrates that the ozone hole is able to influence the tropical circulation and increase rainfall at low latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere
====================================================
First they need to rectify the contradictions from this past year:
A lot of studies said the Amazon is in drought….
….actual measurements say it’s flooding
They always seem to pick places where they can’t be checked out.

O2BNAZ

• “…civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind,” biologist George Wald, Harvard University, April 19, 1970.
• By 1995, “…somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.
• Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor “…the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born,” Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.
• The world will be “…eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age,” Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970.
• “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” biologist Barry Commoner, University of Washington, writing in the journal Environment, April 1970.
• “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from the intolerable deteriorations and possible extinction,” The New York Times editorial, April 20, 1970.
• “By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…” Life magazine, January 1970.
• “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970.
• “…air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone,” Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970.
• Ehrlich also predicted that in 1973, 200,000 Americans would die from air pollution, and that by 1980 the life expectancy of Americans would be 42 years.
• “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” Earth Day organizer Denis Hayes, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.
• “By the year 2000…the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine,” Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.

Bruce

My computer model says bad computer models generate CO2 and destroy the ozone.

TomRude

Can anyone put a link to Lu 2009 paper? thanks

gofer

Not knowing if the thinning (hole) predated its discovery, on what scientific basis did they proceed to blame man? Just when did CFCS come into use? How many decades does it take a chloride ion from Kansas to get to the ozone layer in the Antarctic?There seems to be obvious reasons for the thinning in those particular months from natural sources such as sunshine or lack thereof.

Richard111

Bill in Vigo April 21, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Good question Bill. I second that.
Also doesn’t the ozone hole enlarge and reduce with the solar cycle?

Elizabeth (not the queen)

“They first calculated the atmospheric changes in the models produced by creating an ozone hole. They then compared these changes with the ones that have been observed in the last few decades: the close agreement between the models and the observations shows that ozone has likely been responsible for the observed changes in Southern Hemisphere.”
Now, if only we could demonstrate a correlation between observed changes in the climate system and something quantifiable that existed in reality (HINT: it’s big and bright and very hot)…

jorgekafkazar

mikemUK says: “Does this mean the science isn’t settled after all?”
Yes, but when it is settled, it’ll be “worse than we thought.” Trust me on this.

Theo Goodwin

Bill in Vigo says:
April 21, 2011 at 12:18 pm
“Just curious here but hasn’t most of the CFCs been produced in the northern hemisphere and used there? If so wouldn’t the larger hole in the Ozone layer be in the Northern polar regions.”
This remains one of the great mysteries of climate science. CFCs, produced and used almost entirely in the northern hemisphere, produce a hole over the southern pole. Manmade CO2, produced almost entirely in the United States, Europe, and the Shanghai region of China is measured by a station in Hawaii and declared to be evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere. Don’t dare ask them how CFCs or CO2 gets from point A to point B. Not one of them has a clue.

Richard S Courtney

So, they assert;
“Model results pertaining to rainfall are notoriously difficult to calculate with climate models, and a single model is usually not sufficient to establish credible results. By joining hands and comparing results from two independent models, the scientists obtained solid results.”
Sorry, that is false.
If the error in either model were known then it would be corrected and the other would be discarded. Hence, all that can be said is that both models are erroneous for unknown reason(s). Therefore,
One model provides a wrong result
and
the other model provides a wrong result.
so
both models provide a doubly wrong result
because
average wrong is wrong.
Richard

jack morrow

Models, models. Love them or hate them. I love runway models but hate models from the AGW crowd.

Not convinced !

WHEN (not if) the current Carbon-is-killing-us Meme dies the death it so richly deserves, THEN the current tax-subsidised chicken littles can go back to their old meme of Ozone-hole-is-made-by-man-and-it’s-a-disaster…
Plus, not only is it killing us, but the ozone hole disaster is WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT. Plus it’s accelerating! LOL!!
Oh my God, these shrill alarmists have been with us since the beginning of time – I would bet they have cockroach DNA in their bloodstream, they are so un-killable…

Theo Goodwin

Wil says:
April 21, 2011 at 12:42 pm
“This is a total disaster – what about Al Gore’s green money he needs to keep his waterfront mansions fashionable?”
You live by trashy science, you die by trashy science. Could not happen to a more deserving Nobel Laureate. I just can’t wait to read the dueling trashy science websites at Columbia University and NASA.

fhsiv

How many unverified assumptions can you count in this paragraph? I get at least eight.
“…Over the last half-century, widespread use of manmade compounds, especially household and commercial aerosols containing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), has significantly and rapidly broken down the ozone layer, to a point where a hole in the Antarctic ozone layer was discovered in the mid 1980s. Thanks to the 1989 Montreal Protocol, now signed by 196 countries, global CFC production has been phased out. As a result, scientists have observed over the past decade that ozone depletion has largely halted and they now expect it to fully reverse, and the ozone hole to close by midcentury.”
Funny how outputs from 1980’s vintage computer modeling of ozone depletion becomes the input for “two different state-of-the-art climate models” !
I’d say, garbage in garbage out.

Mike

Amazing what trace gases can do.

Mark.R

They say the so called hole over the South Pole increases the UV there.
Does any one have these readings so we can see them.
I bet there are no readings to prove that UV is much higher when there is a thining of the ozone.

Charlie Foxtrot

So, to summarize, the ozone hole is due mainly to CFC’s which are no longer made, has only existed since the late 70’s or early 80’s when we first had a way to measure it, has not changed much since we first measured it, and is amplified by extreme cold over Antarctica which is colder now due to global warming but no one knows why, and we know all this because the computers tell us so.
Theories based on conjecture.
Sorry, not convinced yet. Keep working.

D. J. Hawkins

Jim G says:
April 21, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Dodgy Geezer says:
April 21, 2011 at 12:17 pm
“Last I heard, there was a paper claiming that the original research blaming CFCs for the ‘Ozone hole’ had major errors in it, and it was unlikely that Man had anything to do with the hole at all……”
I’m old enough to recall back in the 70′s all the hoo-ha about my Right Guard deoderant causing the hole in the ozone and freon being deadly for the ozone layer, yata, yata, yata. So, now that we don’t use that stuff, how come we still have a hole in the ozone? …

As a kind of preview of things to come, the claim was made that CFC’s became the source of highly reactive Cl- radicals, and that one Cl- radical could take out thousands/millions of O3 molecules before being transported out of the ozone layer and thus had an effective lifetime of decades or centuries. Sound like a familiar claim? So a thousand years from now, our 50x great-grandchildren will finally be able to log in to WUWT and crow about how wrong these clowns were about CFC’s and CO2 :-).

alan

“…two different state-of-the-art climate models…” Yeah, we’re familiar with the current state of climate science models!

wsbriggs

O2BNAZ says:
April 21, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Thanks for the memories! Same notes, different song. When you want to control the world, you just keep trying to find the right words.
It’s so sad to see really intelligent young people so brainwashed that they have forgotten how to make informed decisions. I’m guessing that a requirement for course and field work in geology would sober up a bunch of them. It’s hard to claim “unprecedented” when your nose has been rubbing in the rebuttal, despite the sloth-dungers claims to the contrary.

RobW

Ummm when did these scientists forget correlation IS NOT causation? By their reasoning we all know ice cream causes shark attacks.

rbateman

Models: Balsam wood, glue & rice paper.
Hey, didn’t we ban all the Freon stuff just to close the hole?
It was an expensive ban. Scientist said, and we paid the price.
Darn Ozone hole is stubborn as a mule.
Maybe it just plain has a mind of its own, and doesn’t care what we puny humans do.
There’s a lesson here.

Anthony reported on a paper 2 yrs ago that claimed to demonstrate that the Ozone hole was caused by cosmic rays (hence modulated by solar activity), with CFC’s being at best a minor player.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/26/galactic-cosmic-rays-may-be-responsible-for-the-antarctic-ozone-hole/
Thus if the current paper is correct about the ozone hole causing “climate change,” the result is much the same as with the current debate about late 20th century warming. What caused the warming/the-ozone-hole? Was it human effects on the atmosphere, or was it the sun? In both cases, the alarmists are improperly dismissing the natural explanation, since Kang et al. seem to assume that the ozone hole is caused by CFC’s (with their bold claims about Montreal being a model Agreement).

LearDog

Its truly amazing to me that concepts such as ‘Correlation vs. Causation’ and ‘Cause and Effect’ are used to filter stuff like this out. AMAZingly bad science….

Peter Miller

What would Mann and the Team for proxies to measure historic ozone levels over the South Pole?
I don’t know the answer to that, other than the raw data, as per usual, will need strangling to support any of their theories.

Hal

Isn’t a hole in the ozone layer a good thing? This let’s the excess heat and other greenhouse pollutants (from global warming) escape into outerspace. Otherwise we would be burning up faster than we already are.

Robert of Ottawa

I rather doubt one simple cause; and the “Ozone hole” has been around for as long as we’ve known about it. But, it does suggest that reactions in the upper atmosphere can affect the lower atmosphere – and then there is the UV changes that impact ozone formation