Arctic cold yields "unprecedented Arctic ozone loss"

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

North polar region views showing levels of ozone and chlorine monoxide
Left: Ozone in Earth's stratosphere at an altitude of approximately 12 miles (20 kilometers) in mid-March 2011, near the peak of the 2011 Arctic ozone loss. Red colors represent high levels of ozone, while purple and grey colors (over the north polar region) represent very small ozone amounts. Right: chlorine monoxide – the primary agent of chemical ozone destruction in the cold polar lower stratosphere – for the same day and altitude. Light blue and green colors represent small amounts of chlorine monoxide, while dark blue and black colors represent very large chlorine monoxide amounts. The white line marks the area within which the chemical ozone destruction took place. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

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 .

3 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

169 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
KR
October 3, 2011 1:01 pm

Gary Hladik
The hot spot isn’t as elusive as you might think:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/upper-air/2010/13
Summary: troposphere is warming, radiosondes for January–December 2010 found it the warmest since records began in 1958, with a surface trend of 0.13 C/decade and a tropospheric trend of 0.16 C/decade (Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate [RATPAC] dataset). The stratosphere remains quite cold, much colder than in the early 1990’s.
Also see Fu et al 2004 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/nature02524-UW-MSU.pdf), who did some good work on separating stratospheric cooling from tropospheric warming in the satellite records.

CodeTech
October 3, 2011 1:14 pm

Really? Back to the mythical “ozone hole”? The tragic montreal protocol? Some people know no shame.
Ozone: created from O2 when bomarded by UV. Ozone is required to protect us from UV rays. However, when those rays are present, Ozone is automatically created. Or was it just me in the 80s that was flabbergasted that anyone professing intelligence of any sort was buying the “ban Freon to save the Ozone layer” hype?
We were told that by this time we’d need like SPF5000 just to venture out of doors during the day. Wild animals would be blinded and scorched. Plants would be destroyed. It would be horrible, a nightmare, a Mad Max kind of future. The same overdone hyperbole that we are hearing RIGHT NOW about climate. If you weren’t old enough to remember this, well, it’s true.
Here’s my analogy: Ozone is like a standing army. It doesn’t really matter if you let it fade to nothing when it’s not being used. If an invading horde shows up on the horizon and you are able to conscript an effective defensive militia, then you’re good. CFCs in my analogy are… um… hmm…
The very notion that Ozone is some sort of precious resource that should never degrade is laughable… and… a scathing indictment of the first world’s education system.

Neil
October 3, 2011 1:22 pm

I wonder what DuPont patent is about to expire now….

bubbagyro
October 3, 2011 1:22 pm

Just The Facts says:
October 3, 2011 at 12:51 pm
What do you think displaced means? How is displacement different than separation? Displacement means moving to a different place when something was once in another place. SO, if I have ten black and ten white marbles, and I move three white ones to the sides, I have not separated them? Only displaced them? Huh?

George E. Smith;
October 3, 2011 1:34 pm

“Unprecedented” translates as: “We never noticed it before we noticed it !”
Same as Antarctic “oh zone holes”, nobody noticed them, before somebody noticed them, but the solar color temperature record, going back before CFCs shows that ozone holes have always been with us, as evidenced by the variation in the solar short wave end, which results in the color temperature shift.

bubbagyro
October 3, 2011 1:50 pm

KR says:
October 3, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Why did you pick early 1990s? Because that is just after the solar maximum for solar cycle 22 in 1990? Of course, today we have had the weakest solar cycle in 200 years, or thereabouts, with almost 850 spotless days. So the Who do you work for again, did you say? Not to go ad hominem, I would never do that, of course…
The thermosphere has gotten cooler, the stratosphere has gotten cooler, the tropopause is cooler and lower. It’s The Sun, Sailor!
The stratosphere is relatively cooler also because it has little heat capacity and has a faster response time because of that. So you have to figure out lag times accordingly. But we have yet to talk about lag times for dissipation of heat in dry gas mixtures (atmosphere), gas mixtures containing water vapor (thermosphere), liquids (70% ocean, yes earth is! says Yoda), and solids (land masses).
No need for displacing gases or separating temperatures. I’m sorry, computer modelers, really I am.

October 3, 2011 1:55 pm

KR,
I can cherry-pick, too: click
The widely predicted “fingerprint of global warming” was always in the troposphere… until the troposphere didn’t do as predicted. So the focus subtly changed to the stratosphere. But of coursee when your model is falsified by the real world, the best course of action is to regroup and re-examine your premise.
Using real world data like radioondes and satellites, the alarmist predictions have once again failed: click
Face it, what we’re observing is mostly if not all natural variability.

Alex the skeptic
October 3, 2011 2:02 pm

Enginear says:
October 3, 2011 at 9:33 am
Wan’t the ozone hole detected in the 1950′s? Also. I read somewhere that at the poles during early spring and late fall the ocean may be degassing Bromine-Chloride which could be supplying some of the Chlorine required for the ozone depletion.
I must be wrong though as such a peer reviewed study couldn’t possibly have ignored any of this when conducting their study.
Sincerely,
Barry Strayer
+++++++++++++++++
Yes, I emeber reading that too somewhere. I m sure of it and the Bromine-Chlorine thing was also peer reviewed, methinks.

Editor
October 3, 2011 2:12 pm

bubbagyro says: October 3, 2011 at 1:22 pm
What do you think displaced means?
2a : to move physically out of position
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/displacing?show=0&t=1317674717
How is displacement different than separation?
Separation connotes a division into sub-components, whereas displacement connotes a movement due to the introduction of some entity.
Displacement means moving to a different place when something was once in another place. SO, if I have ten black and ten white marbles, and I move three white ones to the sides, I have not separated them? Only displaced them? Huh?
In your example you clearly separated out three white marbles. However, if you placed a larger blue marble in the midst of the white and black marbles pushing some of them to the sides, then these marbles would have been displaced.
You haven’t answered my question, where is the evidence that “ozone is separated out of the air preferentially in the polar areas.”?

bubbagyro
October 3, 2011 2:13 pm

Smokey says:
October 3, 2011 at 1:55 pm
They ain’t seen nuthin’! NOAA and other agencies are just using baseline realignment/readjustment for consecutive years’ runs. How about non-consecutive? Who says it has to be consecutive years?
I’ll bet if I pick 20 dates of my choosing, I can get us to be really, really toasty! Or chilly, whatever…

bubbagyro
October 3, 2011 2:34 pm

Just The Facts says:
October 3, 2011 at 2:12 pm
That is the whole point of the article, the ozone hole at either pole. The concentration is less at the poles than elsewhere. So the original concentration of ozone is measured to be less at these places. So either an original concentration (group) of ozone molecules has been separated out from the rest (displaced) to elsewhere, OR there is a temporary local effect where ozone is generated at a lesser rate than other locations. Has to be one or the other, according to Aristotle.
My point was that you could not blow molecules preferentially around by winds, separating or displacing one type of molecule that was fully admixed out of a clear gas composition. At least using sub-relativistic velocities. Your examples, like planets that have polar cloud formations—you could have added Saturn and Neptune with peculiar hexagon-shaped polar clouds—are not atmospheric situations, but clouds. Clouds are not solutions of gases within gases, but physical particles of liquid dispersed in a gas, yes, these can be displaced and blown around by winds.
Let’s let this one go. I think that we are semanticists, so let’s get back to the ozone hole discussion. If you want the last word, take it away.

Tim Ball
October 3, 2011 2:35 pm

As someone who appeared before the Canadian Parliamentary committee as an expert on ozone I know you are all missing the real explanation for the discovery of this news about the Arctic ozone. It is provided by the recent announcement about funding from the Canadian government. This triggers the standard “The sky is falling” reaction. Guess whose funding is about to disappear?
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110912/full/477257a.html

Editor
October 3, 2011 2:38 pm

bubbagyro says: October 3, 2011 at 12:01 pm
ozone is separated out of the air preferentially in the polar areas.
I’ve looked around and don’t see any support for this supposition. In “Stratosphere troposphere interactions: an introduction” by K. Mohanakumar it states that;
“The walls of the polar vortex act as the boundaries for the extraordinary changes in chemical concentrations. Now the polar vortex can be considered a sealed chemical reactor bowl, containing a water vapor hole, a nitrogen oxide hole and an ozone hole, all occurring simultaneously (Labitzke and Kunze 2005)”
http://books.google.com/books?id=B93SSQrcAh4C&lpg=PA283&ots=d0-uBRjmyI&dq=%22water%20vapor%20hole%22%20polar%20vortex&pg=PA283#v=onepage&q=%22water%20vapor%20hole%22%20polar%20vortex&f=false
This graphic helps to demonstrate the water vapor hole and nitrous oxides hole:
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/images-6/vortex-1.jpg
So if water vapor and nitrogen oxide are both displaced by the polar vortex, what is it that the ozone is being “preferentially” “separated out” from?

October 3, 2011 3:02 pm

I think they’re shooting themselves in the foot this time. People live in the ARCTIC. People who aren’t exclusive to the NOAA and NASA polar alarmist dooright society.
So we’ll have UV index numbers from Churchill, Yellowknife, and the like. And when those numbers ain’t moved a tinker’s damn the only sunblock that will be necessary will be of the tar and feathers applied liberally to climate charletans.

CRS, Dr.P.H.
October 3, 2011 3:10 pm

*sigh* There are plenty of chlorofluorocarbons being produced and consumed, worldwide:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_cfc_con-environment-cfc-consumption
I can’t say that this surprises me in the least, except of course for the low Arctic temperatures!! Ongoing solar minimum?
“Please send rent money.” PhD (piled high & deep)

Andrew30
October 3, 2011 3:26 pm

In Canada the CBC has just re-written their story, twice, and headline on this item:
Google: “extreme cold” site:cbc.ca
[Record Arctic ozone loss caused by extreme cold – Technology …
2 hours ago … Scientists say an unprecedented ozone hole opened up above the Arctic last year, caused by an unusually prolonged period of extremely low …]
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/10/03/arctic-ozone-hole.html – Similar
Then they changed the story to change “Extreme Cold to “Unusual Weather”:
[Record Arctic ozone loss caused by extreme cold – CBC.ca
1 hour ago … Unusual winter weather in the atmosphere high above the Earth’s surface caused an unprecedented loss of protective ozone over the Arctic …]
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/10/03/arctic-ozone-hole.html – Similar
Now they change the headline and completely reverse cause and effect.
Click on the links you now get:
[Arctic ozone hole blamed for weird weather
Unusual winter weather in the atmosphere high above the Earth’s surface caused an “unprecedented” loss of protective ozone over the Arctic this year, scientists say]
Stalin would be proud.

Gary Hladik
October 3, 2011 3:32 pm

KR says (October 3, 2011 at 1:01 pm): “The hot spot isn’t as elusive as you might think:”
Well, as Smokey pointed out, yes it is (check the WUWT climate widget). Moreover, as Just The Facts showed, stratospheric temp has been flat for nearly 15 years.
The whole ‘fingerprint” discussion, however, isn’t terribly relevant, as it turns out that AGW fingerprints…aren’t:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/10/hotspots-and-fingerprints/

jimmi_the_dalek
October 3, 2011 3:54 pm

For those who think that the ozone “hole” (better called an ozone “dip” but I guess we are stuck with the less accurate name) is formed in winter due to the lack of sunlight – wrong, it is formed in spring when the sunlight return to polar regions.
Regarding the comment that chemical reactions run more slowly when it is cold – true in general, but in this case the reactions are photochemical (i.e. are initiated by light) and the temperature is not of direct consequence.
The weather conditions are relevant as what is required is very cold, stable air circulation patterns (normal over Antarctica, uncommon over the Arctic) which allow very high altitude clouds (Polar Stratospheric Clouds) to form. These contain ice crystals on which chlorine containing CFC’s accumulate during the winter, ready to react when sunlight returns.
Sources of chlorine such as sea salt are not involved – it’s soluble! As soon as it rains it washes out. The same is true of Hydrogen Chloride. There is one naturally occurring CFC which can get up to the stratosphere – methyl chloride (CH3Cl) which accounts for about 15-20% of observed CFC’s

stevo
October 3, 2011 3:56 pm

[snip ]

October 3, 2011 4:14 pm

Stevo says:
First off, the “ozone hole” hasn’t been known for very long. Any conjecturing about it is necessarily based on very sparse data.
Same with the stratosphere; the satellite record goes back a few decades, radiosondes a little more. You’re basing your entire argument on a cooling stratosphere?? What about the missing “fingerprint of global warming,” tropospheric heating? That prediction didn’t happen, so the goal posts were moved to the stratosphere. If it weren’t for moving the goal posts, the alarmist contingent wouldn’t have much to say.
You are basing your entire argument on the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy: “Since I can’t think of any other option, then it must be due to AGW.” You probably believe Michael Mann’s original hokey stick chart reflected reality, too. C’mon, admit it.☺

bubbagyro
October 3, 2011 4:25 pm

OK, Jimmy, Davros is here, so listen up!
You are right. Photochemistry proceeds at low temperatures in the first step. Excitation of n to pi-star transition state is initiated by the photon that homes in according to the wavelength allowed. For intents and purposes this is temperature independent. But the secondary reactions of the excited products is temperature controlled. The oxygen radical produced then reacts with, or gets “quenched” by other species. Or reradiates without change. Or reacts with O2 or N2. So production of ozone is more independent of temperature than is the depletion of ozone, that is under temperature control.
Nothing is simple here. Which is why the computer models cannot even apprehend, much less comprehend the processes involved. Nor can we.
But remember, it is up to the hypothesis maker to prove it. “Ozone is depleted by man” is the overarching hypothesis working here. Not proven. In fact, facts are falling on the falsification side, it appears to me.
The inverse hypothesis, namely that ozone concentrations are seasonal and/or cyclical was proposed in answer to the initial hypothesis that ozone holes are man-caused. The inverse hypothesis of natural variation does not have to be proven, but it has to be disproven by the ozone-CFC originators for the original hypothesis to stand.
As the Daleks would say, the alternate solution must be exterminated in order for the initial one to remain intact.

bubbagyro
October 3, 2011 4:27 pm

Smokey said it better and more concisely while I was pontificating. Good on ya’ Smokey!

Editor
October 3, 2011 4:54 pm

jimmi_the_dalek says: October 3, 2011 at 3:54 pm
the ozone “hole” … is formed in spring when the sunlight return to polar regions.
The facts do not support this assertion. According to a number of sources, sunlight returns to the Antarctic in late August/September:
“the end of the polar night (September in Antarctica)”
http://uv.biospherical.com/student/page2.html
“During September and October (the Antarctic polar “morning”)”
http://www.stat.osu.edu/~sses/collab_ozone_split_background.php
“The Antarctic polar night region covered most of Antarctica through to near the end of August, after which it is noticeably shrinking.
http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/ozone/publications/pubs/ozone-reports19sept11.pdf
However, in 2011 the “ozone hole” formed in the middle of August;
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_2011.png
as it did in 2000 and 2001;
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_2000.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_2001.gif
and in 2003, 2005 and 2007 it formed in early August:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_2003.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_2005.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_2007.gif
Why does the “ozone hole” regularly form before “sunlight returns to the air inside the polar vortex and allows the production of active chlorine and initiates the catalytic ozone destruction cycles.”?
http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/part3.html

R. de Haan
October 3, 2011 4:57 pm

Right.
The Arctic Ozone Hole is all over the MSM in Europe and off course it’s all our fault.

October 3, 2011 5:02 pm

Just The Facts says: October 3, 2011 at 11:40 am
What you put forward is all very relevant.
But a few things need to be added:
1. The erosion of ozone within the vortex (also called the Night Jet) is due to the admixture of nitrogen oxides from the mesosphere.
2. The activity of the vortex depends upon surface pressure.
3. 2010 and 2011 saw higher surface pressures than any of the preceding 10 years.
4. The state of surface pressure at the pole is tracked by the Arctic Oscillation index. Tip it on its head and you have surface pressure. i.e. Low AO = high surface pressure at the pole. The index fell between 1948 and 1978, rose till the early nineties and has been falling since. The activity of the AO is correlated with geomagnetic activity.
Dave says: October 3, 2011 at 11:43 am
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.
Tim Ball says: October 3, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Guess whose funding is about to disappear?
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110912/full/477257a.html

“Rex (another Rex) says he understands the need for budgetary constraint, but takes issue with recent statements by Environment Canada official Karen Dodds who said there is “redundancy” in the existing Canadian networks that can be eliminated.
“There is no redundancy,” says Rex, noting that the current Canadian measurements are essential to the international ozone monitoring program.
“The scientists in Environment Canada are bright guys,“ he says. “They have never wasted money by doing redundant measurements.”

My comment:
The ozone hole is said to be due to the work of man. The people saying this don’t want to know about NOx from the mesosphere and the role of the vortex (read Polar Night Jet).
We must have a more educated public. This thread is an indication that most people, even in the interested sceptically oriented opposition, just don’t have a clue.
So, if we are to reduce the hold of the witch doctor element on the public imagination and its purse we must educate them and win them over, one at a time.
Politicians reflect public opinion. When the public is ignorant they take their advice from witch doctors.
This site does a great job in raising the general level of consciousness and educating the public.

Verified by MonsterInsights