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.
Still no one commenting on the giant amount of ozone rimming the hole? What happens if you average the ozone concentration for the hole and the entire surrounding, elevated “ridge”?
For that matter, how does the highly elevated periphery of ozone sit with the CFC theory of depletion?
Can anyone comment about the creation of the ozone? Could it be that the ozone is produced naturally by the atmosphere? The Northern lights are as I understand it a high voltage discharge. If at ground level we have a high voltage spark/flashover/Tesla coil, ozone is created, why cannot this also apply to the upper atmosphere?
I read somewhere that the Rowland and Molina mechanism for CFC’s (Man made of course) destruction of the ozone layer were too small by a factor of 10.
Which brings natural variation to the fore.
Anyone else see this, or post up the link?
I was a student of Sherry Roland and Mario Molina in the late 70’s. Ozone is generated via a steady state process where O2 is broken down to oxygen atoms from UV absorption. Those atoms then combine with O2 molecules to make O3 (ozone) which is a reactive molecule with limited but much better stability than the oxygen radical. When the sun doesn’t shine, ozone is not produced. During the day with the sun shining the stability or residence time of O3 is dependent upon the paths it has to revert to more stable molecules. Things like NOx compounds, SOx compounds and Cl in the stratosphere can accelerate decomposition of the O3 reducing its concentration.
The CFC-ozone connection was derived as a result of the stability of CFC compounds in the lower atmosphere. Many compounds break down with visible light, near UV or get washed out by the weather. CFC’s were immune to most of these attacks in the lower atmosphere so they had a chance to survive sufficient time that they could be carried all the way to the stratosphere. At these altitudes, there is shorter wavelength UV that can attack the CFC causing it to break down into component atoms. The critical of these is chlorine radical and chlorine oxide that is reactive with O3 causing it to break down more easily. The CFC by itself is really not harmful to the O3, it just a carrier that allows chlorine to reach the startosphere and it breaks down releasing chlorine radical in the same general area where the O3 is formed. The catalytic nature of the chlorine on the decomposition of the O3 provides an additional pathway to consume the O3 formed from the photochemically derived oxygen atoms and O2 in sort of a steady state photochemcical and thermal reaction mix, all at very low partial pressures of gas. So if the formation rate doesn’t change but there are more decomposition pathways, the steady state concentration of the O3 is diminished. It’s all based on kinentics.
At the poles in the spring you have another carrier for O3 decomposition catalysts, the ice that swirls in the polar vortex all winter long and as mentioned in the article you have a mix of several catalysts (NOx, SOx & Cl) that can be aborbed on their surfaces. The antarctic has a much more stable polar vortex so its not surprising that the antarctic ozone hole has been known and observed regularly. From what I’ve read, the arctic is a lot more preturbed by winds that blow up from the south so it gets mixes with air from the lower latitudes. What i find surprising and very interesting is the link between solar cycles, arctic oscillations and cold weather patterns emerging over Europe with stratospheric heating/cooling from ozone being the driver. Then there are Earl Hap’s theories about how these thing might influence Enso (which I know many people disagree with). What I am wondering now is the world going to get itself wrapped up in worry over over another 3 atom molecule that is much lower in concentration than CO2, about how it might be a driver for weather and climate. This could be an interesting time.
“What i find surprising and very interesting is the link between solar cycles, arctic oscillations and cold weather patterns emerging over Europe with stratospheric heating/cooling from ozone being the driver. ”
Then try this:
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/news/environment/climate-news/wilde-weather/feature-how-the-sun-could-control-earths-temperature/290.html
ckb says:
October 20, 2011 at 9:02 am
“…..The explanation from wikipedia is quoted below,…..”
Wikipedia? LOL !!!
When the ban on CFCs came into place I research the whole Ozone/Du Pont thing and came to the same conclusion that the ozone hole is part of the earths climate history, that it has always been there and always will until the Sun dies!
Pittzer, there is always diffusion and entropy. Even “heavy” molecules will eventually diffuse into all other parts of the atmosphere, it just takes time.
sean2829 says:
It’s all based on kinetics.
————————————
…So Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California1, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere — almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate. “This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.”
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070926/full/449382a.html
Dupont’s patent on its most popular CFC had expired. They managed to pump up and fund the ozone hole scare, knowing all along that they had a more expensive alternative ready and waiting. The CFC-based ‘science” fostered by Dupont, has been shown to have been junk science, but it served the purpose at the time. Now we know that most of the ozone degradation involves nitrogen gas and radiation form the Sun. Neither of these are our fault.
Another in a growing list of scams.
In another case, two pharmaceutical companies created a way to extend a patent from 17 years to 34 years. The first company patented a drug, the second company contested the patent while it was granted to produce the drug during litigation for a fee. They argued for 17 years and then the first company capitulated and the winning company gets to have the patent for 17 years while the first company produces the drug for a fee. Nothing like ping pong patent law—gotta love it!
Sigh,
“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,”
Incorrect.
The killer graph for this meme has already been shown in this thread by J @ur momisugly 9.14.
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/history.html
Go and look at it carefully.
What was discovered in the late 70’s/early 80’s was the CHANGE in the ozone concentration. The idea that there were no measurements before that is quite simply a lie.
And the ozone hole does NOT form in Winter, it forms in the Spring – just go and look it up.
sean2829 says:
October 20, 2011 at 11:31
I did my college chem paper on this and what you say is correct. But at some point in the 80’s they had to change the mechanism of destruction to PSC’s if memory serves. Cannot remember the P but S was stratospheric and C was crystals. And they never mentioned the volcano in Antarctica belching Cl into the air and had been doing such for years. My conclusion was that the volcano was more likely the source of the Cl than CFC.
I cannot believe the transparent error that is made with regard to the “Ozone Hole”.
Ozone is ALWAYS MADE BY UVII, the higher level UV coming from the sun. The amount made on the POLES is ALWAYS going to be less than towards the equator because of the ANGLE OF INCIDENCE.
This is Maxiomatic.
Max
wsbriggs says:
“Why is the hole in the SH, when 99+% of the freon was used in the NH”.
One explanation that I have heard (can’t remember where, though) is that the solar wind, a stream of charged particles ejected by the sun, is not only deflected polewards by the earth’s magnetic field, but is also partitioned into positive (protons) and negative (electrons) particles. These react differently with ozone and result in an excess of ozone depletion at the south pole. My guess is (can’t find a reference) that it is the excess of protons that head south, reacting with ozone to make oxygen and water.
“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.”
Is this meant to surprise me? Everyday the pigeons are slowly coming home to roost.
The process of Ozone formation is due to the difference in magnetic reluctance between the O3 and O2 molecular forms of oxygen, at the temperature found above the poles the magnetic reluctance (resistance to the flow of magnetic energies) of O2 is three orders of magnitude higher than O3, so to conserve the energy flow from the whole electromagnetic spectrum from DC to very energetic particles, it is more efficient to convert O2 to O3 in areas and times when the total spectrum passing through the upper atmosphere is higher, and it then later degrades naturally when the energy flux is low, Cl and other radicals assist in the normalization process.
The reason for the increase in O3 around the edge of the “Hole” is due to “that is the area” where the electromagnetic total flux is the highest in combined UV and incoming solar wind ion magnetic flux, and is devoid in the shaded middle, where O2 is capable of handling the lower magnetic flux totals. So as the sunlight returns to the poles during their spring season, the O2 > O3 wave progresses back to “normal levels”.
Done.
I see relative stability in the early period, then a sudden drop at about the same time as the great Pacific climate shift of 1978. Looks like it’s stabilised in the last 10 years or so, much like the climate.
What I don’t see is confirmation of the efficacy of the Montreal Protocol. Will we be having the same discussion in 30 years about the efficacy of the global CO2 restriction protocols? At least Montreal has only cost billions.
So we have always had kids trying to survive asthma?
re: sun water?
Yep. Short wave UV will create Ozone in water. Lots of hot tubs and swimming pools use it to clean the water, killing bacteria and so forth. A complex system, as O3 breaks down under UV. Not just at the poles, but over the entire planet. One of the CFC scares was the dire prediction (where have we heard that before?) of a vast increase in skin cancer if we didn’t ban Freon. Why no ‘hole’ above the NP? There are some convenient explanations about temperature differences and land mass, but there should be far more CFC’s up north as that is where 95% were produced. Not much came out of Africa or Australia. Still, had to do them in, like DDT a few decades earlier, more rhetoric than science, and CO2 today. Always with large government grants to sudy the problem.
Was not aware airlines could still get Halon. Best fire extinguisher ever made.
Ged says:
October 20, 2011 at 11:06 am
“Still no one commenting on the giant amount of ozone rimming the hole? What happens if you average the ozone concentration for the hole and the entire surrounding, elevated “ridge”?”
Ged says:
October 20, 2011 at 11:09 am
“For that matter, how does the highly elevated periphery of ozone sit with the CFC theory of depletion?”
The giant amount of ozone is simply because the satellites are looking downward through a column of descending atmosphere that contains ozone. It is the view angle that creates the illusion of very high concentrations. CFCs are not needed for ozone depletion (a fact that is not readily evident in ozone-centric science). If you compress the gas from stratospheric pressures to surface pressures, the increased ozone concentration shortens the half-life to a matter of days. No CFC’s needed. The ozone hole is a result of the circulation pattern in the stratosphere. It is generated above the equator, moves with the stratospheric circulation toward the poles, then descends to the troposphere in a well-defined ring around the pole, like a reverse hurricane, with winds rotating counter-clockwise as the air descends (at the north pole), just like in a hurricane except that in a hurricane the air is rising around the eye. Inside the eye there is little ozone because that air is trapped there. When the descending air is compressed to atmospheric pressure the ozone disappears naturally at its higher concentration.
I remember reading the original article in Scientific American all that time ago,
what struck me then as odd was the comment towards the end in the article that the rate of change over a very large area as measured by `in flight` analysis could not, they said, be understood as the rate of reaction required would be impossibly high. It was a welcome note of caution NOT to jump to conclusions,
bet they wouldnt print something like that now.
Well I have seen a PBS program about the actual research station that the British Antarctic Expedition set up in the mid 1950s, and where one of the earliest reports of Ozone holes was discovered. That station has now been turned over to other folks, as I recall, and the original equipment used is still there as part of the folk lore.
1956, you will recall, was immediately preceding the 1957/58 International Geophysical Year, which was predicated on the predicted sunspot maximum at that time, and an inriguing previous set of at least three sunspot peaks, that were continually increasing, from a 19th century lull. Nobody of course could have guessed that the 1957/8 sunspot peak, would be the highest in all recorded history (of sunspots) and the beginning of a sequence of unusually high sunspot peaks, that persisted up until maybe cycle 23.
1956 was also just 3 years after the successful climb of Mt Everest, and Sir Edmund Hillary was getting itch feet to go charging off across Antarctica.
So I believe Phil is spot on, that 1956 is at least one of the first discoveries.
But one can also find in the annals of the US air force, and SAC, reports of both seasonal and random variations in the apparent color Temperature of the sun, attributed at the time (late 40s and 50s) to variations in the UV and short wave end of the solar spectrum.
I believe those then unexplained color temp variations were likely a hint that there were on and off holes in the ozone layer.
I was even there at the time (NZ gummint lab); but not working on the ozone hole project; which of course hadn’t been named as such yet, and was focussed on something else. (audio atmospherics due to lightning strikes, and the earth magnetic field.
So why isn’t the gap between the North pole and the southern ocean considered the Ozone hole, rather than the puny one at the southern end.
Given such a short history since the earlies credible discoveries, who is to say, that the variability of the ozone holes is in any way unusual. Who the blazes knows what is usual for something, we only have a half century of observation for.
“””””” jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 20, 2011 at 12:36 pm
The killer graph for this meme “””””
“killer graph”, I have down pat; even nene I have down pat; also dodo.
So what does meme meanmean ??
Best I can tell . . .
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=kjrmc&cp=4&gs_id=4&xhr=t&q=meme&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=meme&aq=0&aqi=g4&aql=f&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=d566e0fbd09c8604&biw=1152&bih=562