Ozone holes in Antarctic and Arctic relate to cold rebounds from warming events
By Joseph D’Aleo, Weatherbell.com
The ozone hole above the Antarctic has reached its maximum extent for the year, revealing a gouge in the protective atmospheric layer that rivals the size of North America, scientists have announced.
Spanning about 9.7 million square miles (25 million square kilometers), the ozone hole over the South Pole reached its maximum annual size on Sept. 14, 2011, coming in as the fifth largest on record. The largest Antarctic ozone hole ever recorded occurred in 2006, at a size of 10.6 million square miles (27.5 million square km), a size documented by NASA’s Earth-observing Aura satellite.
The Antarctic ozone hole was first discovered in the late 1970s by the first satellite mission that could measure ozone, a spacecraft called POES and run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The hole has continued to grow steadily during the 1980s and 90s, though since early 2000 the growth reportedly leveled off. Even so scientists have seen large variability in its size from year to year.
On the Earth’s surface, ozone is a pollutant, but in the stratosphere it forms a protective layer that reflects ultraviolet radiation back out into space, protecting us from the damaging UV rays. Years with large ozone holes are now more associated with very cold winters over Antarctica and high polar winds that prevent the mixing of ozone-rich air outside of the polar circulation with the ozone-depleted air inside, the scientists say.
There is a lot of year to year variability, in 2007, the ozone hole shrunk 30% from the record setting 2006 winter.
The record setting ozone hole in 2006 (animating here).
In 2007, it was said: “Although the hole is somewhat smaller than usual, we cannot conclude from this that the ozone layer is recovering already,” said Ronald van der A, a senior project scientist at the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute in the Netherlands.
This year, the ozone region over Antarctica dropped 30.5 million tons, compared to the record-setting 2006 loss of 44.1 million tons. Van der A said natural variations in temperature and atmospheric changes are responsible for the decrease in ozone loss, and is not indicative of a long-term healing.
“This year’s (2007) ozone hole was less centered on the South Pole as in other years, which allowed it to mix with warmer air,” van der A said. Because ozone depletes at temperatures colder than -108 degrees Fahrenheit (-78 degrees Celsius), the warm air helped protect the thin layer about 16 miles (25 kilometers) above our heads. As winter arrives, a vortex of winds develops around the pole and isolates the polar stratosphere. When temperatures drop below -78C (-109F), thin clouds form of ice, nitric acid, and sulphuric acid mixtures. Chemical reactions on the surfaces of ice crystals in the clouds release active forms of CFCs. Ozone depletion begins, and the ozone “hole” appears.
Over the course of two to three months, approximately 50% of the total column amount of ozone in the atmosphere disappears. At some levels, the losses approach 90%. This has come to be called the Antarctic ozone hole. In spring, temperatures begin to rise, the ice evaporates, and the ozone layer starts to recover.
Intense cold in the upper atmosphere of the Arctic last winter activated ozone-depleting chemicals and produced the first significant ozone hole ever recorded over the high northern regions, scientists reported in the journal Nature.
This year, for the first time scientists also found a depletion of ozone above the Arctic that resembled its South Pole counterpart. “For the first time, sufficient loss occurred to reasonably be described as an Arctic ozone hole,” the researchers wrote.
It was related to a rebound cooling of the polar stratosphere and upper troposphere. Notice the December and early January warmth and VERY NEGATIVE AO and the pop of the AO and rapid cooling starting in January.
The Antarctic after a record negative polar warming, turned colder in mid to late winter (starting in late August).
Also note the scientists mentioning the sulfuric acid mixture’s role in the ozone destruction. Sulfate aerosols are associated with volcanism and the recent high latitude volcanoes in Alaska, Iceland and Chile may have contributed to the blocking (warming). Like a pendulum, a swing to one state, can result in a rebound to the opposite extreme very obvious in the arctic.
The data shows a lot of variability and no real trends after the Montreal protocol banned CFCs. The models had predicted a partial recovery by now. Later scientists adjusted their models and pronounced the recovery would take decades. It may be just another failed alarmist prediction.
Remember we first found the ozone hole when satellites that measure ozone were first available and processed (1985). It is very likely to have been there forever, varying year to year and decade to decade as solar cycles and volcanic events affected high latitude winter vortex strength. PDF.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
James Lovelock after Climategate:
“I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”
Back when I first heard of an ozone hole, I thought exactly the same thing….that we just happen to be able to see the dang thing.
Hold on thar. I recall reading about ozone hole discovery in the 1950’s by Dutch scientists. Back then they thought it grew larger or smaller with the sunspot cycle. “been there forever”? seems likely as CFC’s weren’t that big a deal in the 50’s.
One again, we’ve been had.
Yes, the ozone hole was created in the 70s and there were fewer planets in deep space before the Hubble telescope was online.
Get your facts straight D’Aleo, the ozone hole was discovered by the scientists of the British Antarctic Survey based on results dating back to 1956. The rest of the piece is of comparable accuracy.
“Intense cold in the upper atmosphere of the Arctic last winter activated ozone-depleting chemicals and produced the first significant ozone hole ever recorded over the high northern regions, scientists reported in the journal Nature.”
Anyone else see the issue in this statement? The number of ways this is wrong just screams for attention from someone.
when i first read about the hole over the antarctic back in the 70’s, my first thought was “how do they know it’s caused by cfc’s if they have only just discoveredit?”, but then i was convinced by the argument
looks like i should’ve trusted my instincts
“Years with large ozone holes are now more associated with very cold winters over Antarctica and high polar winds that prevent the mixing of ozone-rich air outside of the polar circulation with the ozone-depleted air inside, the scientists say.”
A more zonal atmospheric circulation tends to seal off the poles from ingress of wamer air from lower latitudes.
A more meridional atmospheric circulation allows flows of air in and out of the polar regions more frequently.
The former is a feature of positive Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations whereas the latter is a featutre of negative such oscillations.
Now it is increasingly becoming acknowledged that a top down solar effect may have an influence on the state of those Polar Oscillations. In particular those Oscillations were generally positive with poleward jetstreams during the late 20th century warming period and with the recent record solar quietness (compared to recent solar cycles) there was also record negativity in the Polar Oscillations and evidence of more meridional jetstreams.
So the evidence is building that larger ozone holes are a feature of higher solar activity which causes more positive Polar Oscillations.
Probably never any need to have invoked CFCs as a causative agent in the first place.
The data shows a lot of variability and no real trends after the Montreal protocol banned CFCs. The models had predicted a partial recovery by now.
I’ve seen this movie before.
Remember we first found the ozone hole when satellites that measure ozone were first available and processed (1985).
This just is not valid. Dobson found the ozone hole in 1956 that is who the units are named for. How many times he measured it I am not sure, but the fundamental knowledge of it is well prior to the 1980’s.
Is there any ‘proxy’ data to show a historical view of the ozone hole? Tree rings maybe? Any ‘hockey stick’ graphs to show the hole greatly expanded when my mother used her Aqua-Net hair spray?
Just askin’
I should add that due to the high level of weather induced annual variability it would be possible to observe large ozone holes during a period of generally low solar activity and vice versa.
I think the general background solar induced trend is only apparent over decades and even more apparent over centuries. The most significant timescale being that from MWP to LIA to date.
We have to keep this probable myth alive since disproving it would cast doubt on the “settled science” of global warming.
Retired Engineer is right on. Little was know about the Ozone hole until the 80’s but that is not to mean it was not there. This foolishness is just another case of Anthro-Ego overruling good science.
I am not a scientist, so please bear with me if my questions, and some of my conclusions, seem simple.
I have always been perplexed by the phenomenon by which CFCs that we produce cause depletion of our ozone layer. Actually, amazed is a better word to describe my reaction. As far as I can tell, CFCs act much more like an organism than a simple carbon compound. They exhibit preference, motivation and motility.
Let me explain. CFCs are relatively heavy compounds. Anyone knows that in a chlorine gas spill, the worst place to be is in low areas. The gas pools here because it is heavier than air. Presumably, CFCs would do the same given their first element is chlorine. Correct me if I’m wrong.
How then do heavier than air molecules go from dwelling near the surface of the planet to flying high in the stratosphere? Further, how do they migrate from areas that are far from the south pole and become concentrated there?
Next, we know our cars and industry produce ozone. We also know this ozone tends to pool around cities, especially in the summer time when there is high atmospheric pressure in place. Why don’t the CFCs we release readily bond with that ozone?
So, what we have here is a molecule that is capable of defying gravity, deciding it prefers “organic” ozone to the man-made variety AND it is capable of flying across the globe to meet up with all the other CFCs at a south pole convention where there is a giant buffet of organic ozone waiting for them.
F-ing amazing.
Benfrommo stated:
“Intense cold in the upper atmosphere of the Arctic last winter activated ozone-depleting chemicals and produced the first significant ozone hole ever recorded over the high northern regions, scientists reported in the journal Nature.”
Anyone else see the issue in this statement? The number of ways this is wrong just screams for attention from someone.
Now, I never took chemistry in high school, but from what my basic understanding is that a chemical reaction will be accelerated with the introduction of heat (energy). Example, white vinegar in a tea kettle, heat it up to clean out the calcium deposits faster. But the removal of heat (energy) will slow down chemical reactions. Am I wrong in this basic understanding?
Is there a chemical reaction that takes place when heat is removed? What chemicals are they referencing that are being activated?
Retired Engineer and Mike Kelly above have already stated what I remember: Dr. Dobson knew of the ‘thinning’ of the ozone ( I will NEVER call it a ‘hole’) layer in the 1950s, and that it was seasonal. I looked into this quite a bit when the ‘ban the Freon’ movement in the 1990s was going on, and was surprised that the ‘science’ appeared shoddy as compared to the claims ( . . gee why does that sound familair . . . 🙂 ).
And to ‘link the ozone thinning with CAGW’, I recall reading an article ( . .can’t find it now . . ) where I think Will Happer (from Princeston U, when he was an advisor in the Clinton administration) stated that the freon/ozone issue was a ‘primer to CAGW and controlling CO2.
Yeah, this may sound a bit too ‘conspiracy theory’, but one just has to look at the comparisons of how they have been ‘peddled’ to the populus. . .
Every time I read someone excitedly extolling the virtues of the Montreal protocol, thinking we “fixed” a problem with the Ozone… my estimate of their IQ drops by about 40.
Yeah, I still consider this one a “dress rehearsal”, and we’re watching the main show now. The entire argument was emotional and political… with very little in the way of Science, except as a prop.
Junk science has some good data on historical ozone levels based on dobson’s work
Gotta catch my plane so don’t have time to find the exact link
I’m still waiting for someone to explain the huge buildup of ozone around the perimeter of the ozone holes. Higher than anywhere else on the planet, and also disappear when the holes disappear for the season. Explain their mechanism of creation and how they relate to the holes.
The statement, “On the Earth’s surface, ozone is a pollutant, but in the stratosphere it forms a protective layer that reflects ultraviolet radiation back out into space, protecting us from the damaging UV rays” gave pause. Doesn’t VU-C and shorter wave radiation split O2 and create ‘free’ O atoms that react with other O2 molecules to form O3 in the stratosphere? And, isn’t O3 highly reactive making it a generally a short-lived molecule in the atmosphere?
Ozone holes appear in polar Winter when the regions are not exposed to solar radiation as they are continuously facing away from the Sun. Circumpolar winds creating a vortex blocking mixing of polar air with that of lower latitudes plus natural degradation of pre-winter stratospheric O3 supply through reaction with other air molecules (with or without CFCs) plus NO UV to create new, replacement O3 seems to explain polar ozone holes quite well.
I know it’s not commonly expected, but I actually went and read the real reports, just to see if they really said what Joe says they did.
Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1994 – World Meteorological Organization Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project –
Based on assumed compliance with the amended Montreal Protocol (Copenhagen, 1992) by all nations, the stratospheric chlorine abundances will continue to grow from their current levels (3.6 ppb) to a peak of about 3.8 ppb around the turn of the century […] Peak global ozone losses are expected to occur during the next several years [Note: Remember this is a 1994 report]. The ozone layer will be most affected by human-influenced perturbations and susceptible to natural variations in the period around the year 1998, since the peak stratospheric chlorine and bromine abundances are expected to occur then.
And just to point out the difference between “stabilization” and “recovery”:
Global ozone losses and the Antarctic ozone “hole” were first discernible in the late 1970s and are predicted to recover in about the year 2045, other things being equal. (Note: the Arctic hole is expected to recover more slowly than global levels).
Joe’s own article above briefly mentions a date of “early 2000” for stabilization of ozone levels. Here is the source – see the graphs at the bottom-left. Believe it or not, the ozone hole does stabilize (whether in area or intensity) around the late 90s. Exactly as predicted in the above report.
If you reject this source, consider that it is also the ultimate source for Joe’s claim of a record 2006 ozone hole.
tl;dr: the Ozone hole is behaving exactly as predicted in a 1994 report. Joe’s claims to the contrary are refuted by simply reading said reports and original data about the ozone hole.
1956 to the present is not enough data to establish any kind of longer term cycles . . . . therefore much less for the variations in shorter term cycles. . . . in my opinion.
But, that does not mean models prognosticating how it works and fits into the big picture can/will/have not be(en) formed . . . which truly is in the nature of human nature . . .
pittzer: It is truly freaky, but appears to be absolutely true. The molecules do get into the upper atmosphere and congreate at the poles. The explanation from wikipedia is quoted below, visit the “CFC” page for references:
Since the late 1970s, the use of CFCs has been heavily regulated because of their destructive effects on the ozone layer. After the development of his electron capture detector, James Lovelock was the first to detect the widespread presence of CFCs in the air, finding a mole fraction of 60 ppt of CFC-11 over Ireland. In a self-funded research expedition ending in 1973, Lovelock went on to measure CFC-11 in both the Arctic and Antarctic, finding the presence of the gas in each of 50 air samples collected, and concluding that CFCs are not hazardous to the environment. The experiment did however provide the first useful data on the presence of CFCs in the atmosphere. The damage caused by CFCs was discovered by Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina who, after hearing a lecture on the subject of Lovelock’s work, embarked on research resulting in the first publication suggesting the connection in 1974. It turns out that one of CFCs’ most attractive features—their low reactivity— is key to their most destructive effects. CFCs’ lack of reactivity gives them a lifespan that can exceed 100 years, giving them time to diffuse into the upper stratosphere. Once in the stratosphere, the sun’s ultraviolet radiation is strong enough to cause the homolytic cleavage of the C-Cl bond.
End quote. As an aside, CFCs are some of the most potent greenhouse gasses we know of.
Thanks Joseph,
Remember we first found the ozone hole when satellites that measure ozone were first available and processed (1985). It is very likely to have been there forever, varying year to year and decade to decade as solar cycles and volcanic events affected high latitude winter vortex strength.
Yes, the ozone hole, not having been seen before satellites could measure its depth and extent sounds more like a feature of our atmophere than a bug caused by mankind.