“What was different about this year was that the temperatures were low enough to generate ozone-depleting forms of chlorine for a much longer period of time.” And it is worth noting that the “unprecedented” only applies to the short satellite record. There were no measurements of any kind prior to about 1979.
From the University of Toronto and NASA JPL
Unprecedented Arctic ozone loss occurred last winter
U of Toronto physicists play key role in international study
A NASA-led study has documented an unprecedented depletion of the Earth’s protective ozone layer above the Arctic last winter and spring that was caused by an unusually prolonged period of extremely low temperatures in the stratosphere. University of Toronto physicist Kaley Walker was part of the international team behind the study to be published online Sunday, October 2 in Nature.
The researchers found the amount of ozone destroyed in the Arctic in 2011 was comparable to that seen in some years in the Antarctic, where an ozone “hole” has formed each spring since the mid 1980s. The stratospheric ozone layer, extending from about 15 to 35 kilometres above the surface, protects life on Earth from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays.
The scientists found that at some altitudes, the cold period in the Arctic lasted more than 30 days longer in 2011 than in any previously studied Arctic winter, leading to the unprecedented ozone loss. Further studies are needed to determine what factors caused the cold period to last so long.
The Antarctic ozone hole forms when extremely cold conditions, common in the winter Antarctic stratosphere, trigger reactions that convert atmospheric chlorine from human-produced chemicals into forms that destroy ozone. While the same ozone-loss processes occur each winter in the Arctic, the generally warmer stratospheric conditions there limit the area affected and the time frame during which the chemical reactions occur. This means there is generally far less ozone loss in most years in the Arctic than in the Antarctic.
To investigate the 2011 Arctic ozone loss, Walker and scientists from 18 other institutions in nine countries (United States, Germany, The Netherlands, Russia, Finland, Denmark, Japan and Spain) analyzed a comprehensive set of measurements. These included daily global observations of trace gases and clouds from NASA’s Aura and CALIPSO spacecraft; ozone measured by instrumented balloons; meteorological data and atmospheric models. The University of Toronto team contributed to the balloon-borne data with measurements from Eureka, Nunavut, located at 80 ºN (1,100 km from the North Pole). The team was participating in a Canadian Space Agency-funded project making springtime measurements to verify the performance of a Canadian satellite called the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment (ACE).
“In the 2010-11 Arctic winter, we did not have temperatures that were lower than in the previous cold Arctic winters,” said Walker. “What was different about this year was that the temperatures were low enough to generate ozone-depleting forms of chlorine for a much longer period of time. Arctic ozone loss events such as those observed this year could become more frequent if winter Arctic stratospheric temperatures decrease in future as the Earth’s climate changes.
The 2011 Arctic ozone loss occurred over an area considerably smaller than that of the Antarctic ozone holes. This is because the Arctic polar vortex, a persistent large-scale cyclone within which the ozone loss takes place, was about 40 percent smaller than a typical Antarctic vortex. While smaller and shorter-lived than its Antarctic counterpart, the Arctic polar vortex is more mobile, often moving over densely-populated northern regions. Decreases in overhead ozone lead to increases in surface ultraviolet radiation, which are known to have adverse effects on humans and other life forms.
Although the total amount of Arctic ozone measured was much more than twice that typically seen in an Antarctic spring, the amount destroyed was comparable to that in some previous Antarctic ozone holes. This is because ozone levels at the beginning of Arctic winter are typically much greater than those at the beginning of Antarctic winter.
The scientists noted that without the 1989 Montreal Protocol, an international treaty limiting production of ozone-depleting substances, chlorine levels already would be so high that an Arctic ozone hole would form every spring. The long atmospheric lifetimes of ozone-depleting chemicals already in the atmosphere mean that Antarctic ozone holes, and the possibility of future severe Arctic ozone loss, will continue for decades.
“Each of the balloon and satellite measurements included in this study were absolutely necessary to understand the ozone depletion we observed this past winter,” Walker said. “To be able to predict future Arctic ozone loss reliably in a changing climate, it is crucial that we maintain our atmospheric measurement capabilities.”
From NASA JPL:
October 02, 2011
PASADENA, Calif. – A NASA-led study has documented an unprecedented depletion of Earth’s protective ozone layer above the Arctic last winter and spring caused by an unusually prolonged period of extremely low temperatures in the stratosphere.
The study, published online Sunday, Oct. 2, in the journal Nature, finds the amount of ozone destroyed in the Arctic in 2011 was comparable to that seen in some years in the Antarctic, where an ozone “hole” has formed each spring since the mid-1980s. The stratospheric ozone layer, extending from about 10 to 20 miles (15 to 35 kilometers) above the surface, protects life on Earth from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays.
The Antarctic ozone hole forms when extremely cold conditions, common in the winter Antarctic stratosphere, trigger reactions that convert atmospheric chlorine from human-produced chemicals into forms that destroy ozone. The same ozone-loss processes occur each winter in the Arctic. However, the generally warmer stratospheric conditions there limit the area affected and the time frame during which the chemical reactions occur, resulting in far less ozone loss in most years in the Arctic than in the Antarctic.
To investigate the 2011 Arctic ozone loss, scientists from 19 institutions in nine countries (United States, Germany, The Netherlands, Canada, Russia, Finland, Denmark, Japan and Spain) analyzed a comprehensive set of measurements. These included daily global observations of trace gases and clouds from NASA’s Aura and CALIPSO spacecraft; ozone measured by instrumented balloons; meteorological data and atmospheric models. The scientists found that at some altitudes, the cold period in the Arctic lasted more than 30 days longer in 2011 than in any previously studied Arctic winter, leading to the unprecedented ozone loss. Further studies are needed to determine what factors caused the cold period to last so long.
“Day-to-day temperatures in the 2010-11 Arctic winter did not reach lower values than in previous cold Arctic winters,” said lead author Gloria Manney of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., and the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology in Socorro. “The difference from previous winters is that temperatures were low enough to produce ozone-destroying forms of chlorine for a much longer time. This implies that if winter Arctic stratospheric temperatures drop just slightly in the future, for example as a result of climate change, then severe Arctic ozone loss may occur more frequently.”
The 2011 Arctic ozone loss occurred over an area considerably smaller than that of the Antarctic ozone holes. This is because the Arctic polar vortex, a persistent large-scale cyclone within which the ozone loss takes place, was about 40 percent smaller than a typical Antarctic vortex. While smaller and shorter-lived than its Antarctic counterpart, the Arctic polar vortex is more mobile, often moving over densely populated northern regions. Decreases in overhead ozone lead to increases in surface ultraviolet radiation, which are known to have adverse effects on humans and other life forms.
Although the total amount of Arctic ozone measured was much more than twice that typically seen in an Antarctic spring, the amount destroyed was comparable to that in some previous Antarctic ozone holes. This is because ozone levels at the beginning of Arctic winter are typically much greater than those at the beginning of Antarctic winter.
Manney said that without the 1989 Montreal Protocol, an international treaty limiting production of ozone-depleting substances, chlorine levels already would be so high that an Arctic ozone hole would form every spring. The long atmospheric lifetimes of ozone-depleting chemicals already in the atmosphere mean that Antarctic ozone holes, and the possibility of future severe Arctic ozone loss, will continue for decades.
“Our ability to quantify polar ozone loss and associated processes will be reduced in the future when NASA’s Aura and CALIPSO spacecraft, whose trace gas and cloud measurements were central to this study, reach the end of their operational lifetimes,” Manney said. “It is imperative that this capability be maintained if we are to reliably predict future ozone loss in a changing climate.”
Other institutions participating in the study included Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Potsdam, Germany; NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va.; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, De Bilt, The Netherlands; Delft University of Technology, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands; Science Systems and Applications, Inc., Greenbelt, Md., and Hampton, Va.; Science and Technology Corporation, Lanham, Md.; Environment Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Central Aerological Observatory, Russia; NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Boulder, Colo.; Arctic Research Center, Finnish Meteorological Institute, Finland; Danish Climate Center, Danish Meteorological Institute, Denmark; Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands; Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia; National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan; National Institute for Aerospace Technology, Spain; and University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
For more information on NASA’s Aura mission, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/aura . For more information on NASA’s CALIPSO mission, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/calipso .
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Extremely cold conditions are causing ozone depletion. Yet, the lack of extreme cold conditions are allowing insects to destroy our forests all over the world. Yikes, It’s worse than we thought! Climate Change can cause extreme cold and lack of extreme cold at the exact same time. We’re doomed!
Ged:
Yes. This is other evidence that this is not a diffusion-based phenomenon. Like iron filings, the ozone arranges itself about the magnetic lines-of-force.
Hi Brady.
I read your links re the CFC and Ozone they are all uncertain as to the real cause and in fact suggest that they will have to revise/ revisit their original findings. The Junkscience links don’t work?
But:
As usual the Article sets me thinking and the brilliant comments have given me a new understanding of the Ozone hole in both the North and South poles.
Here is what I find most interesting from both.:
Sea salt puts far more chlorine in the atmosphere than man related activities. Volcanoes produce Chlorine many times more in the upper atmosphere. Volcanoes are a High source for atmospheric chlorine. There is lot’s of venting activity in Antarctica and the it is reported there are 1000s of undersea Volcanic eruptions in the Arctic region as well as Iceland and Greenland \ would all be a good candidates to produce massive amounts of naturally occurring Chlorine Gas in both the north and South Poles.
So if the 60-year half-life of ozone destroying chemicals is reality there will always be a constant natural source of new Chlorine Gas vented into the atmosphere. To me this suggest strongly there has always been and always will be Ozone holes from naturally occurring Chlorine Gas with no help or hindrance from mankind.
crosspatch says: October 3, 2011 at 9:36 am
I would suggest that the ozone wasn’t “destroyed”. What happened is that ozone was not mixed in to the polar atmosphere as much as in previous years.
I think you are on the right track, my still nascent understanding is that the “ozone hole” is actually an artifact of the stratospheric polar vortex. Polar Vortices “are caused when an area of low pressure sits at the rotation pole of a planet. This causes air to spiral down from higher in the atmosphere, like water going down a drain.”
http://www.universetoday.com/973/what-venus-and-saturn-have-in-common/.
“HALOE data show, however, a surprising phenomenon occurring in the center of the Antarctic vortex. Air from very high altitudes descends vertically through the center of the vortex, moving air to lower altitudes over several months.”
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/HALOE-Ozone.html
Air towards the top of the stratosphere has lower concentrations of ozone;
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/images/FIG-FAQ01.JPG
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/sp_profile.gif
thus when this air sinks within the funnel of the polar vortex it displaces the air below it, decreasing the concentration of ozone and creating an “ozone hole”.
“The word hole isn’t literal; no place is empty of ozone. Scientists use the word hole as a metaphor for the area in which ozone concentrations drop below the historical threshold of 220 Dobson Units.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/ozone.php
In addition to the transport of air with lower concentrations of ozone from above, the structure of the polar vortex also results in a low pressure area at its center, similar to the eye of a hurricane, thus one would expect lower lower concentrations of ozone to occur within the center of the vortex. I need to do more research to better understand this relationship and its contribution, but similar to the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Narrative, it seems like the Anthropogenic Ozone Hole Narrative takes a natural occurrence, i.e. decreased ozone concentration at the center of a stratospheric polar vortex and infers human causation upon it. While it is not inconceivable that CFCs might also have a contributory influence, this seems highly speculative, and they are likely a minor player if at all.
For reference, “A polar vortex is a persistent, large-scale cyclone located near one or both of a planet’s geographical poles.” “The vortex is most powerful in the hemisphere’s winter, when the temperature gradient is steepest, and diminishes or can disappear in the summer. The Antarctic polar vortex is more pronounced and persistent than the Arctic one; this is because the distribution of land masses at high latitudes in the northern hemisphere gives rise to Rossby waves which contribute to the breakdown of the vortex, whereas in the southern hemisphere the vortex remains less disturbed. The breakdown of the polar vortex is an extreme event known as a Sudden stratospheric warming, here the vortex completely breaks down and an associated warming of 30-50 degrees Celsius over a few days can occur. The Arctic vortex is elongated in shape, with two centres, one roughly over Baffin Island in Canada and the other over northeast Siberia. In rare events, the vortex can push further south as a result of axis interruption, see January 1985 Arctic outbreak.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex
Here’s an animation of the Arctic Polar Vortex in Winter 2008 – 09;
and this site offers a gallery of Stratospheric Polar Vortices;
http://www.jhu.edu/~dwaugh1/gallery_stratosphere.html
Per this September 2003 paper by Henk Eskes, Arjo Segers, and Peter van Velthoven of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), De Bilt, The Netherlands, “Ozone Forecasts of the Stratospheric Polar Vortex Splitting Event in September 2002″
“The southern hemisphere major warming event in September 2002 has led to a break-up of the vortex in the middle and higher stratosphere and a corresponding splitting of the ozone hole.
“the splitting of the vortex had a dramatic impact on the ozone hole, reducing it’s size and mixing ozone depleted vortex air with midlatitude air.”
“In September 2002 the South Pole vortex showed a rapidly developing distortion and a subsequent split of the vortex in two more or less equal parts (Allen et al., 2003 ). On September 18 the vortex looked normal. It was displaced slightly away from the pole, but not in an unusual manner. From 21 to 23 September the vortex rapidly elongated. The process resulted in a split vortex on 24-26 September. At this time the ozone hole had been transformed into two smaller ”ozone holes” of nearly equal size. After the split the vortex remnant on the Southern Atlantic slowly gained strength and moved back to the South Pole during the first two weeks of October. The second remnant vortex over the Pacific rapidly weakened and the ozone depleted air mixed with mid-latitude air with higher ozone mixing ratios.”
“In late September and early October, Syowa is located inside the (split) vortex. Ozone values remain low until about 10 October. Then the small remaining vortex moves from the South Atlantic towards the South pole, and ozone values increase. The ozone history at Arrival Heights is very different. As soon as the vortex starts to elongate, around 21 September, the ozone hole edge passes and ozone values jump from about 170 DU to high values of about 400 DU within one day. Ozone stays very high for more than two weeks and only around 10-12 October low, ozone depleted column values of less than 200 DU are abruptly found again. This is again related to the migration of the center of the small vortex to the pole. After this the vortex weakens and moves in the direction of South America, and the ozone at Arrival Heights reaches values of around 350 DU.”
http://www.knmi.nl/~eskes/papers/jas1039_eskes_pp.pdf
“The ozone hole is in the center of a spiraling mass of air over the Antarctic that is called the polar vortex. The vortex is not stationary and sometimes moves as far north as the southern half of South America, taking the ozone hole with it.”
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/HALOE-Ozone.html
The Uncertainty of past research comes to light!
Chemists poke holes in ozone theory
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html
So Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California1, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere — almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate. “This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.
The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago2 (see graphic). If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.
Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. “Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart,” says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.
“Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely,” agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. “Now suddenly it’s like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.”
Wow… nice of them to mix Ozone hole with AGW. I think they should tie up war on drugs/terrorism and swine flu to AGW too.
The Chilling Stars.
Volcanic eruptions can and do inject HCL directly into the atmosphere:
In an article in 21st Century (July/August 1989), Rogelio Maduro showed that Mt. Erebus an Antarctic volcano has been erupting constantly for the last 100 years, emitting more than 1000 tons of chlorine per day.
Mt. Erebus, has in fact been percolating for over a century [ARS], but the estimate of 1000 tons/day of HCl only applied to an particularly active period between 1976 and 1983 [Kyle et al. 1990]. That estimate has been since been reduced to 167 tons/day (0.0609 Mt/year). By 1984 emissions had dropped by an order of magnitude, and have remained at lower levels since; HCl emissions at the crater rim were 19 tons/day (0.007 Mt/year) in 1986, and 36 tons/day (0.013 Mt/year) in 1991. [Zreda-Gostynska et al.] GK
“Actually, the colder temperature would slow the breakdown of ozone. It does require a certain amount of energy input to break the bonds in the O3 molecules”
Quite possibly true as I am not a physicist. I was taught to believe that two molecules of O3 would form three molecules of O2 on contact as the bond for O2 is much “tighter” than the bond for O3. in fact, O3 will so readily give up that third molecule (which I understand is held in only a weak electrostatic bond) that O3 is a more powerful oxidant than O2. O3 really, really, wants to shed that third molecule and will at just about any given opportunity.
But from some additional reading, it seems you are correct. It does degrade faster with higher temperatures. According to one source, the (sea level?) atmospheric half-life of O3 is about 30 minutes so it doesn’t live very long when it has a good chance of contacting anything that can be oxidized.
pat says:
Sea salt puts far more chlorine in the atmosphere than man related activities. Volcanoes many time more in the upper atmosphere. 2010 and 2011 experienced some rather intense volcanic activity in Iceland.
It appears hard to find any reference to Ozone Depletion Potential with respect to NaCl or HCl. Also since the breaking of the C-Cl bond in CFCs is a photochemical reaction it can’t actually be happening when these holes form.
Just The Facts says:
October 3, 2011 at 11:40 am
Your facts are right, just not explanatory of why ozone is separated out of the air preferentially in the polar areas. Just as you cannot un-mix the sugar out of sugar water no matter how fast you stir it, you cannot “Un-mix” components out of air no matter how much wind is supplied. This is governed by the Laws of Thermodynamics applied to the Entropy of Mixing. It would be horrible if during a windstorm, oxygen were blown out of my neighborhood! Fortunately the First Therm Law precludes this.
The only forces in the universe strong enough to separate things against entropy that I know of are phase change based, or electromagnetic, magnetic, or ionic.
crosspatch says:
October 3, 2011 at 11:54 am
Right on.
That was the other thing wrong with the logic of the article. Colder conditions do not, and cannot make things speed up, or “trigger” things. These guys just lack the fundamentals. Reaction rates decrease by half for every 10°K decrease in temperature. Ozone is more stable at lower temperatures. Approaching absolute zero, ozone is almost infinitely stable.
‘Mr President. We have a situation..
CO2 is up, and O3 is down. The massive heating caused by the CO2 has caused massive cooling and that increases the CL and despite the reduction in CFC the O3 is suffering. ‘
‘Dang – are we sure ?’
‘100 million per cent certain sir’
‘What does Mann say?’
‘He says if we give him the SubUrban Heat Island modelling grant, he’ll sort out the Hole with some statistics sir’
The president looks away from the camera, drums his fingers, bows his head, looks up. grim faced
‘Lets do it’
Very good points raised here – all showing we have no idea of the forces surrounding us that are in constant action in a dynamic environment with all forces in actions at all times at all places at once. Nothing is stable. We’re still arguing about the sun in reference to warming, years of wrangling about co2, why did age ages occur, or maybe how did the planet warm in the middle of an ice age? Now science seems to be at a complete loss as to ozone creation,(granted we have layman’s understanding) ozone levels, why they occur, why they disappear, or even how does any of this fit where? It seems to me at least the more questions we ask the more we begin to understand we don’t really understand very much at all. Something is missing from human physics. We know human physics break down when black holes come into play, or even dark energy that entirely affects the universe. We don’t know. Which says we have a real problem in basic understanding science has not yet solved. And physic affects everything around us therefore we’re all stumbling around in the dark here. Just my take.
In a way, I guess we are fortunate that climate scientists study climate. Just think what would happen if they switched to the field of sexually transmitted diseases.
KR says (October 3, 2011 at 10:32 am): “Note that stratospheric cooling is one of the fingerprints of greenhouse gas warming – the troposphere gets warmer, the stratosphere gets cooler, as energy is retained lower in the atmosphere.”
I’m curious. As “greenhouse gasses” warm the troposphere, we’re supposed to see a “hot spot” (so far as elusive as Trenberth’s missing heat) in the tropical troposphere, which tells me the greatest stratospheric cooling should also be found in the tropics. But the “unprecedented” stratospheric cooling in this article was in the arctic!. So did the researchers find the “missing” tropospheric hot spot over the North Pole? Were AGW alarmists right (sort of) all along?
Or was it just, you know, that pesky weather thingy?
In response to Jim G and others:
I am disappointed that so many on this website did not know this. One of the fingerprints of AGW is that the stratosphere gets colder while the troposphere gets warmer. And indeed, the stratosphere is indeed colder than it was 30 years ago while the troposphere does not match that trend. If tropospheric warming was due to conventional measures of the sun’s energy output, then stratosphere should have similar warming
The problem for the AGW theory is that all the decrease in stratospheric temperatures all occurred in step functions around the times of major volcanic eruptions in low latitudes. There has been no cooling of the stratosphere in the last 17 years – only a statistically insignificant warming trend.
There are more nuances than this post will cover – e.g., the role of ozone – but a careless look at stratospheric temperatures would support the AGW theory, but a more careful examination undermines it.
The sun creates ozone, the sun takes it away. Mix in a few cosmic rays, and who knows what you get.
Wasn’t the “CFC chlorine produced” ozone hole theory destroyed when the scientists involved actually did the experiment, they thought they didn’t have to do?
So I can now get a decent tan up in the Arctic? Cool.
Take a look at the NOAA data for 70hpa (~60,000ft):
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/70mb9065.gif
it was colder than average for the whole of February and March but then 2010 was warmer than average for the whole of February and March!
Things are not going well for the believers in efficacy of the Montreal Protocol:
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.html
this year is shaping up to be more or less the same as all the years since about 1989 in the Antarctic – ie a roughly 25 million km² hole with a minimum ozone level of about 100 DU.
A conspiracy theorist might be tempted to think that news of the appearance of the long-dreaded Arctic ozone hole is just an attempt to produce some alarmism for IPCC consumption as there has been virtually no change for over 20 years in the Antarctic.
A press release with no data. What are the high and low levels of ozone and chlorine monoxide? How low were the ozone levels compared to “normal”? Did they measure UV levels any where to compare with historic levels? UV exposure is so much higher at the equator than the polar regions that the annual ozone hole is meaningless. This press release has so little real information that the press should be complaining that it is a usless puff piece.
bubbagyro says: October 3, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Your facts are right, just not explanatory of why ozone is separated out of the air preferentially in the polar areas.
But where is the evidence that “ozone is separated out of the air preferentially in the polar areas.”? I am arguing not for separation, but displacement, whereby some of the ozone that exists at the pole prior to vortex formation is simply displaced to areas around the pole outside of the vortex and to lower altitudes.
In this graphic, note the ozone surplus that exists outside of the polar vortex (aka “ozone hole”);
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/sbuv2to/gif_files/sbuv18_sh_latest.gif
and in these pictures of Venus’s south pole, particularly the one on the right, note the “hole” in Venus’ atmosphere caused by a polar vortex:
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/venusexpress/PioneerVenus_South%20PoleVortex_H.jpg
Judging by the high ozone concentration just outside the critical area, there is strong possibility that the ozone is just pushed away by the rising polar vortex.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ozone.htm
An Inquirer says: October 3, 2011 at 12:18 pm
The problem for the AGW theory is that all the decrease in stratospheric temperatures all occurred in step functions around the times of major volcanic eruptions in low latitudes.
The two large jumps and then steps down in stratospheric temperature;
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tls/plots/rss_ts_channel_tls_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
do correlate well with the 1982 eruption of El Chichon, a Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) 5 and the 1991 erupotion of Pinatubo a VEI6:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/grad/mloapt/mlo_transmission.gif