“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.
Khwarizmi says: October 3, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Early in the year someone called “Jimmi” tried to cloud the issue when I found an old explanation in the polar vortex…
Jimmi’s opinion aside, there appears to be a strong correlation between vortex breakdown and the disappearance of the “ozone hole”, i.e.:
“Figure 4 shows the relationship between the Vortex Vanishing Date and the Ozone Hole Vanishing Date. The relationship between the ozone hole and vortex vanishing dates is such that the longer the vortex lasts the closer the ozone hole vanishing date is to the vortex vanishing date. Unlike 2008 in which both dates were longer than any previous year, the dates for 2009 are in the “middle of the pack”.”
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/winter_bulletins/sh_09/Fig_4.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/winter_bulletins/sh_09/
And the observed decrease in ozone concentration during the 80s and 90s;
http://www.theozonehole.com/images/ozoned30.gif
corresponds with “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.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7598/is_20091115/ai_n42654411/
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.
Ah look who is here,
Khwarizmi, I never replied to the end of that thread because it had died. But if I had I would have said that the reference was not supposed to say anything about polar stratospheric clouds, because I assumed (incorrectly) that you would know what they were. The reference was simply confirmation of the fact that the weather that year was anomalous.
As far as your argument in that thread went, I would point out that you need to learn the difference between necessary conditions and sufficient conditions – as this years Arctic event shows, a particular weather pattern is necessary, but that does not mean it is sufficient – other factors are needed as well. To be precise, the presence (as observed, it’s actual data) of chlorine radicals activated photochemically which engage in a catalytic destruction of ozone (that is also actually observed in situ – it is not a model or anything)
PS I added the extra identifier because there are too many Jims, Jimmys and Jimmis on this board.
@ur momisugly erl happ:
“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.”
Well, I thought of your mechanism as explained on WUWT right off, so keep on pushing, erl!
The way it was playing out in Canada was a large hole in the ozone appeared just as the Canadian Government was shutting down the research.
“The discovery of the “unprecedented” hole comes as the Canadian government is moving to cut its ozone monitoring network”.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/02/unprecedented-ozone-hole-opens-over-canadian-arctic/
Thank God they found the hole. Now they can shut the network down.
jimmi_the_dalek says: October 3, 2011 at 7:52 pm
There is actually significant daylight in Antarctica from August onwards.
Are you arguing that Astronomical Twilight is “significant daylight”?
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0015/23037/south-pole.png
“Astronomical twilight is the time when the center of the sun is between 12° and 18° below the horizon. From the end of astronomical twilight in the evening to the beginning of astronomical twilight in the morning, the sky (away from urban light pollution) is dark enough for all astronomical observations.
Most casual observers would consider the entire sky fully dark even when astronomical twilight is just beginning in the evening or just ending in the morning, and astronomers can easily make observations of point sources such as stars, but faint diffuse items such as nebulae and galaxies can be properly observed only beyond the limit of astronomical twilight. In some places, especially those with sky glow, astronomical twilight may be almost indistinguishable from night.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight
2) reading graphs. Look at both the area and the ozone concentration. Note that the graphs start at the beginning of August. Note that there is hardly anything happens until mid August. On the first time-shot hardly anything has happened yet so the fluctuations are small and not yet significant. Now notice that the change occurs rapidly from mid August to mid September.
What graphs are you reading? As I stated above in 2003, 2005 and 2007 the “ozone hole” formed in early August and increased rapidly during the first half of 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
In fact in 2003, the “ozone hole” had reached 86% of it’s maximum size by mid-August:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_2003.png
Addendum,
Memoryvault, Just_The_Facts, Khwarizmi,
While you are thinking about polar vortices, I should add, in case it is not clear, that these are of course the particular weather conditions that result in stratospheric clouds. So without the vortex there are no (or not many) clouds , and without the clouds there is nowhere for the CFCs (and a bit of nitric acid) to accumulate ready to leap out when sunlight strengthens. Try looking this up, or better still considering what site you are on, try asking a meteorologist.
Wil says:
October 3, 2011 at 10:11 am
Year after years after year it the same – we lose folks who we find frozen to death. Never yet found one human boiled to death in my neck of the woods.
Sit naked by the ocean in the shade of a palm tree at noon on the equator and you will not be hot. If there is the slightest breeze you’ll likely want to move into the sun to stay warm. Such is the power of global warming.
StopTheClimatefascist says:
October 3, 2011 at 9:36 am
Millions of children died due to the stupidity of the climate scientist and stupid politicians who signed the protocol. It’s just terrible.
However, the politicians and climate scientists involved gained fame and fortune and didn’t starve to death. So by the logic of politics and climate science, the folks that starved to death were to stupid ones. If they were smart, they would have got on-board the gravy train before it left the station. Climate science is simply doing its bit to help the earth by reducing the excess population.
Just_The_Facts
No I am not considering astronomical twilight to be daylight. I am considering, correctly, that the south pole is not all of Antarctica. Do you not realise that the other sites on this page
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/fact-files/weather/sunlight-hours
are in Antarctica? (well OK not Kingston, that is in Tasmania, and presumably included to show how much difference there is).
So some years shows the ozone hole starting to develop in early August. August is Spring! Look at the daylight hours for Davis, Mawson and Casey for August.
jimmi_the_dalek says: October 3, 2011 at 8:23 pm
While you are thinking about polar vortices, I should add, in case it is not clear, that these are of course the particular weather conditions that result in stratospheric clouds.
I am familiar with the convoluted scientific hypothesis behind the Anthropogenic Ozone Hole narrative, “The Recipe For Ozone Loss”;
“To summarise then, we have looked at the ‘ingredients’ or conditions necessary for the destruction of ozone that we see in Antarctica. The same applies more or less to the loss of ozone in the Arctic stratosphere during winter. Although in this case the loss is not nearly so severe.
To recap then, the requirements for ozone loss are:
The polar winter leads to the formation of the polar vortex which isolates the air within it.
Cold temperatures form inside the vortex; cold enough for the formation of Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSCs). As the vortex air is isolated, the cold temperatures and the PSCs persist.
Once the PSCs form, heterogeneous reactions take place and convert the inactive chlorine and bromine reservoirs to more active forms of chlorine and bromine.
No ozone loss occurs until sunlight returns to the air inside the polar vortex and allows the production of active chlorine and initiates the catalytic ozone destruction cycles. Ozone loss is rapid. The ozone hole currently covers a geographic region a little bigger than Antarctica and extends nearly 10km in altitude in the lower stratosphere.”:
http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/part3.html
However, displacement due to the existence of polar vortex, along with the associated decent of air with lower concentrations of ozone and higher concentrations of nitrogen oxides provides a logical explanation for the development and dissipation of the “ozone hole”. CFCs influence on stratospheric ozone concentrations seems highly speculative and unsupported by the data. For example, why did the “ozone hole” grow so quickly in 1994 and 1995?;
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_1994.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_1995.png
That doesn’t look like a chemical process, it looks like a polar vortex coalescing…
Erupting volcanoes (certainly Mt. Erebus) are quite capable of throwing HCL aerosols high into the stratosphere, where it may drift across the surface of the globe for many thousands of miles. GK
GK,
It is possible that more HCl gets up there than I had realised, by it still seems to be a minor component, assuming that the pie-chart in the middle of this page is accurate, though I admit I don’t know if it is. http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/myths/volcano.html
But it is somewhere to start – if you have anything quantitative on the relative proportions that would be interesting.
Just_The_Facts
Let’s try testing your hypothesis that it is all down to polar vortices. There are data on ozone measurements back to 1957 (contrary to some peoples belief that they only date from the 1980’s) In the middle of this page there is a graph. Have a look.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/ozone_depletion_09
If you would prefer the original data try here
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/jds/ozone/data/ZOZ5699.DAT
So after you have plotted it, can you explain why there were apparently no collapsing vortices from about 1957 to 1972, or maybe 1975 , but they have turned up strongly in most years since?
@ur momisugly James Evans
” Am I supposed to be terrified because the Arctic is too warm? Or terrified because the Arctic is too cold?”
It makes no difference. We’re doomed either way.
Would volcanic eruptions have anything to do with this, they release a lot of chlorine and aerosols
too? Most modern refrigerators now use a less harmful gas, and most aerosols have got rid of CFC’s. There are not enough records about the ozone level to draw any conclusions, but possibly the chances of skin cancers are increased because of the extra UV getting to earth.
I mean 20 years ago people were beginning to question the use of household aerosols, and stopped using spray deoderants to roll ons. Maybe as the planet gets colder there is more requirement for more UV to hit the earth. Haven’t much scientific on the subject. But years ago they said the Arctic Ozone hole was almost closing up.
Just The Facts says: October 3, 2011 at 6:55 pm
What are my thoughts? Simply that the night jet is a perennial feature connecting mesosphere with the stratosphere and the depletion occurs all through the year. Look at the situation in the Arctic right now at: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/
The evidence for the effect of the night jet on ozone composition is not hard to find. The temperature of the upper stratosphere varies inversely with surface pressure (any time of the year) and it stands to reason that night jet activity is enhanced when surface pressure increases. The relationship is best examined on a daily rather than a monthly time scale. Simply take the timing of the sudden stratospheric warmings here: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/
And relate it to the flux in the AAO and the AO (indirect measures of pressure) here: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/hgt.shtml
There is a little warming happening in the Antarctic over the last half of September. The AAO is positive indicating low surface pressure and diminished night jet activity. So less NOx has been entering and ozone builds up causing the warming above 30hPa. It’s usually most obvious at 5hPa. In the context of what occurred last year the Antarctic stratosphere has so far this winter been very stable with high surface pressure (low AAO). The night jet has been strong. This ‘ozone hole’ is a perennial feature of the upper stratosphere at both poles. The cumulative influence of months of night jet activity is seen in spring at the point when the night jet begins to weaken as surface pressure is lost as the atmosphere migrates towards the winter pole. So far as Antarctica is concerned the big transition occurs in late October, November. The general level of ozone at this moment is in weak recovery mode as evidenced by the rise in temperature towards the 1979-2008 mean as seen here: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/05mb6590.gif
There may be a contributing effect from chlorine but NOx is working around in the background all the time. We don’t have to have to wait around till late spring to see the temperature of the upper stratosphere collapse.
Remember ozone absorbs OLR at 9.6 micrometers and but for the presence of ozone there would be no increase in the temperature of the air above the tropopause. What is happening can be inferred from the temperature dynamic. It also confirmed by close examination of maps showing ozone, temperature and geopotential height. So, these parameters give rise to a pattern of spatial variation. Plain old curiosity and observation. In this time of sophisticated statistical analysis there is not enough observation of geography and dynamics.
From the paper you cite by Waugh Polvani:
The interannual variability of the vortices is due to external forcing of the atmospheric circulation, e.g., solar variations, volcanic eruptions, and anthropogenic changes in composition (e.g., ozone and greenhouse gases (GHGs)), as well as internal variations within the climate system, e.g., the quasibiennial oscillation (QBO), El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and internal variability due to nonlinearities. See Gray [this volume] and Haigh [this volume] for more discussion of the influence of the QBO and solar variation, respectively, on the variability of the vortices.
It sounds very knowledgeable but it’s BS. Upper stratospheric temperature varies with surface pressure plain and simple with a secondary dependency related to the variation in NOx in the mesosphere related to solar activity.
Another process worth taking into account: Ozone breaks down primarily via photo dissociation…but not in the polar night because no ‘photo’. Ozone content is greatest in the winter stratosphere. See maps here: http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/eng/atlas-tope.htm
Ozone is least in the subtropics of the winter hemisphere so there is a very strong gradient between the pole and the subtropics in the winter hemisphere.
There is no part of the atmosphere that is less observed or understood than that at the poles. All the conventional distinctions between troposphere and stratosphere derived from observation of tropics and mid latitudes do not hold at the poles.
The notion that wave activity affects the vortex is a red herring. People like the idea of an atmosphere that is shielded from all external influences.
However, increasing observational and modeling evidence in the last decade suggests that polar stratospheric vortices can have a significant influence on the tropospheric flow for a range of time scales [e.g., Baldwin and Dunkerton, 2001;Thompson and Solomon, 2002; Polvani and Kushner, 2002; Gillett and Thompson, 2003; Norton, 2003; Charlton et al.,
Now we are talking sense.
Numerous recent observational and modeling studies have shown that changes in the stratospheric polar vortices can influence the tropospheric circulation, on both weather and climate time scales. However, there remains uncertainty in the precise dynamical processes involved.
There should be no uncertainty. It’s a very simple process. I have a post coming up soon on this very subject.
Where has all the ozone gone?
Long time passing
Where has all the ozone gone?
Long time ago
Where has all the ozone gone?
We are baffled every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
jimmi_the_dalek says: October 3, 2011 at 9:33 pm
So after you have plotted it, can you explain why there were apparently no collapsing vortices from about 1957 to 1972, or maybe 1975 , but they have turned up strongly in most years since?
I cannot yet explain why, but as I cited above there is evidence that such a variance in vortex activity did occur, i.e.:
“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.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7598/is_20091115/ai_n42654411/
mmm..wonder how the ozone holes fared during the little ice age? Guess we will never know.
erl happ says: October 4, 2011 at 3:28 am
Interesting, that’s a lot to chew on. I will research further and respond after work, and look forward to your forthcoming post.
Just_The_Facts,
that paper that you cited appears to be the opposite way round to your interpretation. They are discussing events which occur in the Antarctic in November and December i.e at least 2 months after the formation of the ozone hole. Rather than attributing the formation of the ozone hole to the breakdown of the vortex, as I think you were implying (?), they are attributing the delayed breakdown to the prior formation of the ozone hole. But I would have to read it, and similar papers, more than once before I was certain of that.
jimmi_the_dalek says: October 4, 2011 at 5:45 am
Rather than attributing the formation of the ozone hole to the breakdown of the vortex, as I think you were implying (?), they are attributing the delayed breakdown to the prior formation of the ozone hole.
Not at all. As I state and provide evidence for above, “there appears to be a strong correlation between vortex breakdown and the disappearance of the “ozone hole””
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/03/arctic-cold-yields-unprecedented-arctic-ozone-loss/#comment-758638
@- #
ArtisiticAviator says: October 3, 2011 at 9:45 am
“Seawater appears to have a relatively high concentration of NaCl. Assuming that all “atmospheric” Cl is from human sources seems counter-intuitive. I am not a chemist, but surely some of that NaCl could make it to the upper atmosphere to cause changes in O3 concentration. Anybody have a counter-theory on this?”
Several posters have raised this point, along with noting the apparent contradiction between the extra time of a cool stratosphere and global warming.
The resolution is simple.
With AGW the troposphere (lower atmosphere) warms, while the stratosphere cools. This is a well established ‘fingerprint of the GHG effect.
Back in the 80s NASA modified a U2 spy plane of the ‘Gary Powers’ type to fly up into the stratosphere and map the distribution of various compounds.
While there is a lot of naturally occurring Chlorine in the troposphere it is all in very water soluble form and is rained out with the water vapor in the mid to high troposphere.
Insignificant amounts of natural Chlorine compounds reach the stratosphere because of the water solubility factor. The only Chlorine compounds to reach the Stratosphere are insoluble man-made forms.
These break down with UV and ice-clouds to provide the Chlorine that destroys ozone far faster than it is formed by the UV. This process has been directly observed as well as duplicated in the lab and modelled. Unfortunatly the man-made compounds are very persistant so the HFCs released in the 70s and 80s, (as well as the illicit continued manufacture and use in other nations) are still around to destroy ozone, and will be for several decades yet.
Thank goodness the global protocol provides SOME restriction on adding even MORE to the system!
Remember that, according to the proposed chemistries, chloride is catalytic, not a substrate. It gets regenerated and goes on to do more ozone breakdown. A little goes a long way.
“””””
ozone-loss/#comment-758638
izen says:
October 4, 2011 at 6:58 am
………………….These break down with UV and ice-clouds to provide the Chlorine that destroys ozone far faster than it is formed by the UV. “””””
Ergo, there is NO ozone, since it gets destroyed far faster than it is formed. QED.