“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.
A question about Polar Vortices in general.
This NIDC link about the Arctic Oscillation on Earth,
http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/patterns/arctic_oscillation.html
says inter alia:
“The oscillation exhibits a “negative phase” with relatively high pressure over the polar region and low pressure at midlatitudes (about 45 degrees North), and a “positive phase” in which the pattern is reversed. In the positive phase, higher pressure at midlatitudes drives ocean storms farther north,”
If the negative phase gives relatively high pressure at the poles AND that high pressure allows the polar air to push towards the mid latitudes doesn’t that imply that the normal air flow is upward and that a slackening of the upward flow allows surface pressure at the pole to rise ?
A positive phase would give relatively low pressure at the poles allowing a stronger upward flow and the pulling of the polar air masses back towards the poles.
I ask because on other planets such as Venus the polar vortices involve descending air at the centre but that would give a negative phase pulling the polar air back towards the poles and a positive phase pushing it equatorward again.
The opposite of what we seem to see on Earth.
Or have I missed something ?
I think I have partly answered my own question.
In the ‘normal’ positive AO situation the polar high pressure cells comprising descending air are situated at or near the poles.
However when the AO is negative a weak low pressure cell develops at the pole and the high pressure cell splits into 2 or 3 components that then move towards the mid latitudes taking cold air with them.
So depending on the setup the air at the poles can either be descending or weakly rising.
There is still a difference from other planets though because there the polar vortex is apparently cyclonic but with descending air which I still find puzzling.
In relation to Earth that all complicates some of the suggestions made above as regards the interplay between the various layers of the upper atmosphere at high latitudes and particularly there are implications for ozone creation, destruction and redistribution.
The most interesting data to me is that found by Joanna Haigh who says that from 2004 to 2007 ozone amounts declined below 45 km at a time of quiet sun but above 45km there was an unexpected increase.
I think work needs to be done on how the ozone quantities at different levels are affected by the interplay between the level of solar activity AND the changes in upward or downward air flow as the pressure over the pole changes.
In particular changes in the upward or downward flow would alter ozone transfer rates between layers and also as Erl Happ points out the transfer of Nox and other chemicals affecting ozone from higher levels.
FWIW my current opinion is that it will be found that the balance of all the processes leads to general ozone decline when the sun is more active and a general increase when the sun is less active. However the timescale involved is likely to be multicentennial such as from LIA to date or MWP to LIA rather than from one solar cyle to the next (unless there is a very large solar change such as may be happening from cycle 23 to cycle 24).
George E. Smith; says:
October 4, 2011 at 10:34 am
Thanks George, for getting back to the article. I got frustrated with the posts that were focusing on ozone generation. I was trying to get to the premise of the U of Toronto paper that said that ozone was being destroyed, Destroy means it was there, but it was annihilated by something.
I tend to agree that less ozone is being produced, But that is not the premise of the paper. Less being produced is not the same as some being destroyed (or “displaced”, as some here have asserted).
Stephen Wilde says:
October 4, 2011 at 12:44 pm
We haven’t discussed much the accuracy of the Dobson method. A several mm beam is shot through the column of atmosphere at several different wavelengths. The column is many kilometers long. Finally, an equation determines the relationship among the absorption at different wavelengths, some of which wavelengths are absorptive for the wavelength of ozone, some are not. So a Dobson unit is a derived measurement.
A plane, radiosonde, or satellite sees a different column depending on the altitude of the source.The instrumental accuracies are very good, around 2%. However, the absolute accuracy is open for question.
There is no doubt that the Dobson results vary by season. However, as some here have pointed out, measurement conditions, such as the amount of water vapor in the cold months is different. So when humidity is higher, the broad absorption spectrum of water vapor interferes more with the measurement column that is trying to be specific for ozone absorption. Yearly variations in the polar vortexes and cloud conditions change according to climate variations, such as the AO.
So, might we have a further complication, in that we may have a measurement problem? Isn’t it possible that a confounding problem (systematic error) is introduced?
As an analytical chemist, I always question the assumptions in the instrumental method.
This is almost Bell/Strieberesque. Where are the instantly frozen caribou? 🙂
No one ever bothers to mention volcanoes belching chlorine, it is always mankind’s fault.
EFFECTS OF VOLCANIC GASES…..
Chlorine
Chlorine is emitted from volcanoes in the form of hydrochloric acid (HCl), which breaks down into chlorine and chlorine monoxide (ClO) molecules. The sulfate aerosols furnish sites for chemical reactions that release the chlorine atoms…. The reactive chlorine atoms then proceed to destroy ozone, with each chlorine atom being recycled many times….. http://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/gas.htm
Map of Alaskan volcanoes: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/#
“New evidence deep beneath the Arctic ice suggests that a series of underwater volcanoes have erupted in violent explosions in the past decade…….” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25419241/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/volcanoes-erupting-beneath-arctic-ice/
Thousand of new volcanoes revealed beneath the waves:
…The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 metres over the sea bed…. “ http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12218
Submarine Ring of Fire 2006: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/multimedia/oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/06fire/welcome.html
Of course volcanoes could not have anything to do with the presence of chlorine, it has to be man who is responsible. /sarc
Just_The_Facts
says
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””
To which I am afraid I have to say “so what”. Just because there is a correlation between two events occurring in the Antarctic summer, which is when you would expect those events to occur, it is a major leap of logic to claim that that means that the vortex is the cause of the ozone hole, and the paper that you cite does not state that it is. As I have already stated, it seems that the vortex is a necessary precondition, but that is not the same as cause.
Gail : “Thousand of new volcanoes revealed beneath the waves: ”
Hydrogen chloride is water soluble….
jimmi_the_dalek says: October 4, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Just because there is a correlation between two events occurring in the Antarctic summer, which is when you would expect those events to occur, it is a major leap of logic to claim that that means that the vortex is the cause of the ozone hole, and the paper that you cite does not state that it is. As I have already stated, it seems that the vortex is a necessary precondition, but that is
not the same as cause.
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
erl happ says: October 4, 2011 at 3:28 am
Simply that the night jet is a perennial feature connecting mesosphere with the stratosphere and the depletion occurs all through the year.
Wouldn’t this make the term “night jet” a misnomer? Are these polar jets that rise and intensify during the polar night?
Look at the situation in the Arctic right now at: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/
I see an ozone dip down to 30 hPa;
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_10_nh_f00.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_20_nh_f00.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_30_nh_f00.gif
but nothing significant below that:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_40_nh_f00.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_50_nh_f00.gif
The evidence for the effect of the night jet on ozone composition is not hard to find.
I definitely agree.
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
I see the relationship you cite, but am not sure that it, “stands to reason that night jet activity is enhanced when surface pressure increases.” Couldn’t it be the inverse, i.e. that surface pressure increases when night jet activity is enhanced?
We don’t have to have to wait around till late spring to see the temperature of the upper stratosphere collapse.
…
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.
I am not sure what you mean here. Are you inferring sudden stratospheric warmings aren’t associated with vortex break-up, or rather that some stratospheric warming can be seen prior to break up?
“The first three Arctic winters of the ACE mission represented two extremes of winter variability: Stratospheric sudden warmings (SSWs) in 2004 and 2006 were among the strongest, most prolonged on record; 2005 was a record cold winter.”
“Temperature and vortex evolution was very similar in the two years [2004 and 2006], with the vortex breaking down throughout the stratosphere, reforming quickly in the upper stratosphere, while remaining weak in the middle and (especially) lower stratosphere.”
“2005 was the coldest winter on record in the lower stratosphere, but with an early final warming in mid-March.”
“Disparate temperature profile structure and vortex evolution resulted in much lower (higher) temperatures in the upper (lower) stratosphere in 2004 and 2006 than in 2005. Satellite temperatures agree well with lidar data up to 50–60 km, and ACE-FTS, MLS and SABER show good agreement in high-latitude temperatures throughout the winters. Consistent with a strong, cold upper stratospheric vortex and enhanced radiative cooling after the SSWs, MLS and ACE-FTS trace gas measurements show strongly enhanced descent in the upper stratospheric vortex in late January through March 2006 compared to that in 2005.”
http://www.ace.uwaterloo.ca/publications/Manney-ExtremeArcticWinters_ACP.pdf
The notion that wave activity affects the vortex is a red herring.
Can you provide support for this assertion?
“Observational studies have confirmed that the vertical propagation of primarily topographically forced Rossby waves into the stratosphere is the cause for sudden warming events that occur in the stratosphere around midwinter about every other year. Holton (2004) chapter 12.4 describes such events as follows. During normal years, the mean temperature profile of the lower stratosphere has minimum temperatures above the equator with a temperature maximum at the summertime pole. In the wintertime hemisphere a local maximum around 45° exists followed by a rapid decrease in temperature toward the pole (see Holton figure 12.2). The rapid decrease is explained through the thermal wind requirement of a zonal vortex with strong westerly shear with height. About every other year a breakdown of the zonal vortex occurs due to enhanced vertical propagation of Rossby waves. The breakdown happens quickly in the span of a few days and leads to a reversal of the meridional temperature gradient and creation of a circumpolar easterly current due to a sudden warming of the stratosphere.”
http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/users/isavelyev/GFD-2/Rossby%20waves.pdf
There should be no uncertainty. It’s a very simple process. I have a post coming up soon on this very subject.
I look forward to your post, but remain quite uncertain. I cannot imagine vortex behavior and influence to be a very simple process.
Theory predicts:
* Increased GHG ==> tropospheric warming
* Tropospheric warming ==> stratospheric cooling
* Tropsopheric warming ==> increased sea ice loss
* Stratospheric cooling ==> more PSCs
* Stratospheric cooling ==> ozone depletion
Which of these are occurring in the arctic? All of them.
Conclusion: the theory must be wrong.
Just_The_Facts
I hope you do not think that the vertical line on those graphs corresponds to an actual measurement?
In fact it means that those years they had no measurements at the beginning of the period, and some poking about on the NOAA site reveals that there were problems with the satellites being in the wrong place.
Is that the same extreme cold that melts the icecap?
The Antarctic has reduced hours of sunlight a year, so does the Arctic and Arctic circle. Even the Hebrides in Northern Scotland. But they do have longer up to 22 hours of sun in the warmer months. Lands of the midnight sun anyone remember that? I doubt if the sun has much influence
there but the temperatures might.
jimmi_the_dalek says: October 4, 2011 at 10:05 pm
I hope you do not think that the vertical line on those graphs corresponds to an actual measurement?
In fact it means that those years they had no measurements at the beginning of the period, and some poking about on the NOAA site reveals that there were problems with the satellites being in the wrong place.
I like your evidence-less argumentative style… Post links to support your assertions or be ignored.
1998 also had a very rapid rise;
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_1998.png
and in 1980 there was essentially no rise:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_1980.png
Based on your assertion it looks like NOAA satellites are regularly “in the wrong place” or more likely they are simply tracking the coalescing and break up of the polar vortex.
Just_The_Facts, says
“Based on your assertion it looks like NOAA satellites are regularly “in the wrong place” or more likely they are simply tracking the coalescing and break up of the polar vortex.”
I think you need to be reminded again when winter is in Antarctica – the polar vortex forms in winter (May, June, July), the ozone hole forms in spring (August, September, October)
1980? LOL as they on the internet – what you are seeing is that there was no ozone hole in 1980!
Try NASA’s page http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/annual_data.html where they summarise the data – there are links within that page, so if you click on a particular year you get more information and images. Just look at how the “ozone hole” changes from year to year.
Another source of year-by-year data is NOAA http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/winter_bulletins/
To get the earlier ones you have to click on archive.
1994 and 1995. What do you think you are seeing in those graphs? I am used to questioning data (I’m a sceptic!) so my first thought on seeing those is that the strange shape is caused by missing data. If you want to interpret it, as you said, as the polar vortex coalescing then you must think that it sprang fully formed from zero to full strength on one day in September. Do you really think that?
Anyway the NASA site omits all data for 1995, and the British Antarctic Survey http://www.theozonehole.com/ozoneholehistory.htm says (scroll right down the page) “no satellite in place” for 1995, and the NASA site for 1994 makes it obvious that there is a months data missing, and the NOAA site (follow the the links to the full history for 1994) also makes it clear that they could not get a satellite into position.
1998? No idea , could be instrumental problems, could be small fluctuations at the start of the process – why don’t you try to explain it?
Anyway, if you are trying to argue that the polar vortex is the cause, the sole cause and nothing but the cause of the ozone hole then you have a problem, because you have to explain this
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/winter_bulletins/sh_10/Fig_2.gif
which shows the size of the hole, and compare it with this
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/winter_bulletins/sh_10/Fig_3.gif
which shows the area of the coldest part of the polar vortex, i.e. the area cold enough to form PSCs and you need an explanation of why the vortex is much the same back through the years, but the ozone hole is not. Perhaps there is in fact an extra factor at work? As a clue to what it might be you need to go no further than the nice graphic at the top of this very thread – on the left you have an image of the Arctic hole this year – on the right you have…..Oh, it’s map of the ClO concentration.
jimmi_the_dalek says: October 5, 2011 at 6:07 pm
the polar vortex forms in winter (May, June, July), the ozone hole forms in spring (August, September, October)
Mostly correct, however in 2007;
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_2007.gif
2005;
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_2005.png
1991;
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_1991.png
and 1990;
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_1990.png
the “Ozone Hole” appears to have formed in July, at least according to NOAA.
1980? LOL as they on the internet – what you are seeing is that there was no ozone hole in 1980!
Funny, it looks more like a sensor failure, or crappy data, to me…
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_1980.png
Try NASA’s page http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/annual_data.html where they summarise the data – there are links within that page, so if you click on a particular year you get more information and images. Just look at how the “ozone hole” changes from year to year.
Another source of year-by-year data is NOAA http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/winter_bulletins/
To get the earlier ones you have to click on archive.
Good resources. Thank you.
1994 and 1995. What do you think you are seeing in those graphs? I am used to questioning data (I’m a sceptic!) so my first thought on seeing those is that the strange shape is caused by missing data.
Anyway the NASA site omits all data for 1995, and the British Antarctic Survey http://www.theozonehole.com/ozoneholehistory.htm says (scroll right down the page) “no satellite in place” for 1995, and the NASA site for 1994 makes it obvious that there is a months data missing, and the NOAA site (follow the the links to the full history for 1994) also makes it clear that they could not get a satellite into position.
The NASA site seems to indicate that there was a gap between the 1993–1994 data from the TOMS instrument on the Soviet-built Meteor-3 satellite and 1996–October 2004 data from the NASA Earth Probe TOMS satellite.
If you want to interpret it, as you said, as the polar vortex coalescing then you must think that it sprang fully formed from zero to full strength on one day in September. Do you really think that?
No. But conceptually a vortex can form very rapidly, e.g. a tornado or a vortex in a draining sink, once the conditions are right. I am not really sure what to make of this data. At present I have limited confidence in its veracity, especially all of the data before 1996…
1998? No idea , could be instrumental problems, could be small fluctuations at the start of the process – why don’t you try to explain it?
NASA’s 1998 Ozone Hole Area:
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/figures/merra/ozone/toms_areas_1998_toms+merra.pdf
looks markedly different from NOAAs 1998 Ozone Hole Area:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_1998.png
My explanation, our understanding of Earth’s climate system is rudimentary at best, our measurement capabilities are awful and our historical record is laughably brief.
Anyway, if you are trying to argue that the polar vortex is the cause, the sole cause and nothing but the cause of the ozone hole then you have a problem, because you have to explain this
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/winter_bulletins/sh_10/Fig_2.gif
which shows the size of the hole, and compare it with this
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/winter_bulletins/sh_10/Fig_3.gif
which shows the area of the coldest part of the polar vortex, i.e. the area cold enough to form PSCs and you need an explanation of why the vortex is much the same back through the years, but the ozone hole is not. Perhaps there is in fact an extra factor at work?
I agree, the vortex hypothesis is weak. While it may be a factor, I think there are likely a number of other variables and processes that we have yet to understand.
As a clue to what it might be you need to go no further than the nice graphic at the top of this very thread – on the left you have an image of the Arctic hole this year – on the right you have…..Oh, it’s map of the ClO concentration.
I am definitely not sold on the Anthropogenic Ozone Hole hypothesis. The data to support it appears spotty and flimsy, and the hypothesis behind it seems contrived. You seem to be a fan, why are you so convinced?
jimmi_the_dalek says: October 5, 2011 at 6:07 pm
I am used to questioning data (I’m a sceptic!) so my first thought on seeing those is that the strange shape is caused by missing data.
I concur, and it’s things like this that certainly don’t engender confidence:
“Nimbus-7 TOMS Instrument and Satellite Information
The TOMS program began with the launch of TOMS Flight Model #1 on the Nimbus-7 spacecraft on October 24, 1978. Valid measurements started in November of that same year and the instrument continued to return data long after all other on-board experiments had failed. The TOMS instrument fell silent in May 1993. The software to derive useful information from the data returned by Nimbus 7 TOMS is the basis for the algorithm used to analyze all TOMS data and has gone through a lengthly evolutionary process bring it to the current version.The Version 7 processed data include a revised instrument calibration based on analysis of the entire 14.5 year data record (including a correction for a 0.2 nm wavelength error which caused a 3% absolute offset relative to Dobson) as well as an improved algorithm.
Algorithmic Improvements include:
use of wavelength “triplets” that correct for errors linear in wavelength
improved ISCCP cloud height climatology, higher resolution terrain height maps
use of improved profile shape selection to improve total ozone at very large solar zenith angles
use of a more accurate model for partially-clouded scenes
improved radiative transfer calculations for table generation”
http://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/n7toms/n7sat.html
NASA Ozone Data Source:
The data for 1979–1993 are from the TOMS instrument on the NASA/NOAA Nimbus-7 satellite.
The data for this 1993–1994 are from the TOMS instrument on the Soviet-built Meteor-3 satellite.
The data for 1996–October 2004 are from the NASA Earth Probe TOMS satellite.
The data for November 2004–2011 are from the OMI instrument (KNMI / NASA) onboard the Aura satellite. They are the OMTO3 that have beene processed in a manner similar to the TOMS data from earlier years.
The ozone minimum is determined only from data actually contained in the processed satellite data. To calculate the ozone hole area and mass deficit, we fill in missing areas (bad orbits and polar night) from an atmospheric model. MERRA is a NASA reanalysis for the satellite era using a major new version of the Goddard Earth Observing System Data Assimilation System Version 5 (GEOS-5). The Project focuses on historical analyses of the hydrological cycle on a broad range of weather and climate time scales and places the NASA EOS suite of observations in a climate context. Since these data are from a reanalysis, they are not up-to-date. So, we supplement with the GEOS-5 FP data that are also produced by the GEOS-5 model in near real time.”
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/ozone_1990_MERRA_SH.html
I think your instincts are right on, i.e. “long after all other on-board experiments had failed” it produced suspect data, which was then put through “a lengthly evolutionary process” that includes “revised instrument calibration”, “including a correction for a 0.2 nm wavelength error”, “as well as an improved algorithm” that included “a more accurate model for partially-clouded scenes” and “to calculate ozone hole area and mass deficit” they “fill in missing areas (bad orbits and polar night) from an atmospheric model.” The “Ozone Hole” data before 1996 seems very suspect and deserves further research and scrutiny…
“08-15-2007
Corrected Earth Probe Data
correction basis: NOAA-16 SBUV/2 ozone
time period: August 1996 – December 13, 2005
data products corrected: ozone, reflectivity
By mid-2000, the Earth Probe (EP) TOMS instrument degradation became so large that standard correction procedures could no longer produce accurate ozone. The problem is believed to be inhomogeneous degradation of the scanner mirror on TOMS that results in a calibration error that is different at different latitudes. We have warned users that the production EP ozone data should NOT be used for trend analysis.
We have now applied a correction to the Earth Probe data that stabilizes the EP ozone record. This empirical correction is based on the NOAA-16 SBUV/2 ozone record, with a solar zenith angle dependence that accounts for much of the spurious latitude dependence observed in the current data. Only the ozone and reflectivity records have been corrected. The aerosol index data and SO2 records are more complex and have not been corrected by this empirical correction.
Comparison with the ground network shows that the resulting ozone is stable within ± 1% over the 1996-2005 period. In the period 2002-2005 in the northern hemisphere, there is a residual seasonally-dependent error of ± 1.5% magnitude. These data should still NOT be used as a source for trend analysis since they are no longer independent.”
http://ozoneaq.gsfc.nasa.gov/news.md
It seems like the TOMS instrument has a history of issues.