While this is good news any way you look at it, I note there are a number of news reports saying that the “Ozone Hole Shrinks to Record Low” which are non thinking media regurgitations from a LiveScience article by Stepahnie Pappas. Pappas even shows how this isn’t true in her own story, see the yellow highlight below the image:
From the European Space Agency, I have the original press release, with no mention of a record low:
Is the Ozone Hole on the road to recovery?
Satellites show that the recent ozone hole over Antarctica was the smallest seen in the past decade. Long-term observations also reveal that Earth’s ozone has been strengthening following international agreements to protect this vital layer of the atmosphere.
According to the ozone sensor on Europe’s MetOp weather satellite, the hole over Antarctica in 2012 was the smallest in the last 10 years.
The instrument continues the long-term monitoring of atmospheric ozone started by its predecessors on the ERS-2 and Envisat satellites.
Since the beginning of the 1980s, an ozone hole has developed over Antarctica during the southern spring – September to November – resulting in a decrease in ozone concentration of up to 70%.
Ozone depletion is more extreme in Antarctica than at the North Pole because high wind speeds cause a fast-rotating vortex of cold air, leading to extremely low temperatures. Under these conditions, human-made chlorofluorocarbons – CFCs – have a stronger effect on the ozone, depleting it and creating the infamous hole.
Over the Arctic, the effect is far less pronounced because the northern hemisphere’s irregular landmasses and mountains normally prevent the build-up of strong circumpolar winds.
Reduced ozone over the southern hemisphere means that people living there are more exposed to cancer-causing ultraviolet radiation.
International agreements on protecting the ozone layer – particularly the Montreal Protocol – have stopped the increase of CFC concentrations, and a drastic fall has been observed since the mid-1990s.
However, the long lifetimes of CFCs in the atmosphere mean it may take until the middle of this century for the stratosphere’s chlorine content to go back to values like those of the 1960s.
The evolution of the ozone layer is affected by the interplay between atmospheric chemistry and dynamics like wind and temperature.
If weather and atmospheric conditions show unusual behaviour, it can result in extreme ozone conditions – such as the record low observed in spring 2011 in the Arctic – or last year’s unusually small Antarctic ozone hole.
To understand these complex processes better, scientists rely on a long time series of data derived from observations and on results from numerical simulations based on complex atmospheric models.
Although ozone has been observed over several decades with multiple instruments, combining the existing observations from many different sensors to produce consistent and homogeneous data suitable for scientific analysis is a difficult task.
Within the ESA Climate Change Initiative, harmonised ozone climate data records are generated to document the variability of ozone changes better at different scales in space and time.
With this information, scientists can better estimate the timing of the ozone layer recovery, and in particular the closure of the ozone hole.
Chemistry climate models show that the ozone layer may be building up, and the hole over Antarctica will close in the next decades.
###
If the ozone hole is a natural phenomenon that opens and closes as it wishes, this is neither a good thing nor a bad thing, but just a thing.
The history of the ozone hole before studying it is unknown. Since it was “discovered”, I’ve been unable to find a “problem” except through IPCC similar modeling (remember the blind sheep of Argentina?).
Mind you, I should point out something to those interested
NOTE the difference in ozone measured in the NH and the SH
it is quite significant?
Indeed, yes it is.
When I saw that for the first time, It puzzled me. The funny part is that I figured out where most of the warming of earth comes from: water has absorbency in the UV region, meaning that all radiation coming in at UV range is converted to warmth/ heat in the water.
Now, remember that for life to thrive, you need warmth – at least within a certain range —
and ?
most of the water of earth is in the SH…….
Are you with me? It is amazing.
God bless you if get this hint.
“Reduced ozone over the southern hemisphere means that people living there are more exposed to cancer-causing ultraviolet radiation.”
I always get a kick out of that claim, for several reasons.
How many people are living under the ozone hole? Because it occurs over Antarctica, I would suggest not many people live there. Maybe some scientists studying Antarctica and Tierra del Fuegans are under the edges of it.
To how much more ultraviolet radiation are they exposed? Because it occurs over Antarctica, I would suggest that most people are fairly well clothed (due to the cold) and low sun angle would also tend to reduce the amount of total ultraviolet radiation. Being covered in clothes would negate exposure to ultravilet radiation. Maybe a beach in Rio at the height of summer might be a better place to worry about people being exposed to cancer-causing ultraviolet radiation.
In case there is some confusion:
people living in the SH must take much more precaution to not expose their bodies to sunlight
please
just always sit on the shade, as I do,
please
What ever happened with this item? It seems to have vanished……..
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html
Waste Recycling News carries an article suggesting classifying certain plastics as hazardous waste, following the example of the Montreal Protocol with CFCs:
http://www.wasterecyclingnews.com/article/20130214/NEWS02/130219960/classify-plastics-as-hazardous-waste-scientists-urge
[begin quote]
Classify plastics as hazardous waste, scientists urge
February 14, 2013
By WRN Staff
A group of scientists believe they have a way to keep plastics from ending up in oceans or being littered across the countryside: classify plastics as hazardous waste.
“We believe that if countries classified the most harmful plastics as hazardous, their environmental agencies would have the power to restore affected habitats and prevent more dangerous debris from accumulating,” a group of 10 scientists wrote in an article posted Feb. 13 on the journal Nature’s website.
As a template, the scientists are using the 1989 Montreal Protocol, which classified chlorofluorocarbons as hazardous and which has proven to be one of the most successful environmental initiatives in history.
One of the researchers, Chelsea Marina Rochman, told the Los Angeles Times that similar accomplishments can be achieved if four difficult-to-recycle plastics — polyvinylchloride (PVC), polystyrene, polyurethane and polycarbonate – are targeted.
According to the Nature article, less than half of the 280 million tons of plastic produced globally in 2012 ended up recycled or in a landfill. The scientists suggest that a substantial amount of the remaining 150 million tons of plastic ended up as litter. Without action, the global environment will have to deal with 33 billion tons of plastic by 2050.
“This could be reduced to just 4 billion tons if the most problematic plastics are classified as hazardous immediately and replaced with safer, reusable materials in the next decade,” the scientists wrote. “We feel that the physical dangers of plastic debris are well enough established, and the suggestions of chemical dangers sufficiently worrying, that the biggest producers of plastic waste – the United States, Europe and China – must act now.”
Plastics & Rubber Weekly, a sister publication to Waste & Recycling News, contributed to this report.
[end quote]
tokyoboy says:
February 13, 2013 at 7:22 pm
I still wonder if the Antarctica ozone depletion is caused by a tiny amount of chlorofluorocarbons which has been released mostly from countries in the northern hemisphere….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Do not forget the active volcanoes belching chlorine. Mount Erebus for one is active and A string of a dozen volcanoes, at least several of them active, has been found beneath the frigid seas near Antarctica,
In the Arctic New evidence deep beneath the Arctic ice suggests a series of underwater volcanoes have erupted in violent explosions in the past decade.
I gather from this but unsaid, is that the massive Antarctic volcano emitting hundreds of thousands of tons of Ozone destroyers, has ceased erupting after 20 or 30 years. I recall reading that after the foo farah and the Montreal Protocol was adopted, someone went back to look at data collected in 1957 for the “International Gleophysical Year” and lo and behold, the Ozone hole was there back then too, just not interpreted.
philr1992 says:
February 14, 2013 at 12:44 am
Despite all the information you may have read, there is not one shred of supportable evidence that CFCs have found their way 40 miles up above the Earth. No one has ever found any up there because they are roughly five times heavier than air.
On the contrary CFCs are measured in the stratosphere, their concentration is constant up to about 15km above which it decays away due to the influence of UV
The rest of the post is a similar fabrication.
OssQss says:
February 14, 2013 at 9:16 am
What ever happened with this item? It seems to have vanished……..
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html
### ### ###
As history told us pope often were wrong in their judgment.
Pope et al (Pope, F. D., Hansen, J. C., Bayes, K. D., Friedl, R. R. & Sander, S. P. J. Phys. Chem. A 111, 4322–4332 ) were proofed to be wrong as well.
And a short remark on Dobosn discovery of the ozone hole:
The values Dobson measured in 1956 in Antarctica were twice as high as the values considere to be a “hole” today. There for I call santences spread by Joe D’Aleo like this
“Rogelio Maduro, Ralf Schauerhammer
The evidence includes how ozone scientist Gordon Dobson discovered the Antarctic ozone hole in 1956, before CFCs were widely used, & showed that it was a natural annual phenomenon; how natural sources of chlorine far outweigh man-made CFCs;”
as an urban myth or better: This is horsefeathers, Joe
stas peterson says:
February 14, 2013 at 12:30 pm
I gather from this but unsaid, is that the massive Antarctic volcano emitting hundreds of thousands of tons of Ozone destroyers, has ceased erupting after 20 or 30 years. I recall reading that after the foo farah and the Montreal Protocol was adopted, someone went back to look at data collected in 1957 for the “International Gleophysical Year” and lo and behold, the Ozone hole was there back then too, just not interpreted.
Hardly since the BAS data showed 300 DU back then as opposed to the more recent 100-150 DU.
Billy Liar notes the increased ozone around the ozone “hole”. Is this possibly a sign that we have a mechanical process pushing ozone out of the center and into the periphery via circum-antarctic winds? The whole argument I have heard so far does not seem to give a reason for the increases on the periphery.
Phil says,
“Hardly since the BAS data showed 300 DU back then as opposed to the more recent 100-150 DU.”
This is true only if you agree with the decision to ignore other data as below. I found this on the NUEP Ozone Secretariat website.
“In 1958, measurements of total ozone were made at the Dumont d’Urville station (66.7°S, 140°E) in Antarctica using a photographic plate method to analyze solar ultraviolet radiation after it passed through the ozone layer. The reported measurements were anomalously low, reaching 110–120 DU in September and October. These values are similar to minimum ozone
hole values now routinely observed over Antarctica in the same months (see Figure Q11-2). Some have speculated that
these limited observations provide evidence that an ozone hole existed before ODS emissions were large enough to cause
the depletion. However, analyses of the more extensive Dobson spectrophotometer measurements made at several other
Antarctic locations in 1958 did not confirm the low total ozone values. These measurements indicate that the photographic
plate determinations were not a reliable source of total ozone values at the Dumont d’Urville station in 1958.”
Neil Jordan says: @ur momisugly February 14, 2013 at 9:39 am
Waste Recycling News carries an article suggesting classifying certain plastics as hazardous waste, following the example of the Montreal Protocol with CFCs….
Which goes to show these researchers don’t know what the heck they are talking about.
If the WWF/activist/media connection had not interfered there would be a plant in Leominster MA for recycling waste polystyrene from McDonalds. The project was co-funded by McDonalds, Sweetheart Plastics and Novacor/Polysar. The plant was already designed and about to break ground. The TV commercials announcing the joint venture were to be air in less than a month. Then some twit in NH starting screaming about the evils of polystyrene getting most of her factoids incorrect and her “Activism” immediately spread nationwide. McDonalds dropped the idea like a lead balloon and that was the end of the polystyrene post consumer waste recycling plant. The plant had even been specially designed to use handicapped workers.
Anyone here at WUWT knows the media doesn’t just spread a “grassroots” story nation wide without some heavy hitters behind it.
I did a bit of digging to find out what actually happened. Seems Canadian Nationalist Robert Blair managed to really tick-off some of the entrenched elite. Blair was the President and Chief Executive Officer of NOVA Corporation who came up through the ranks BTW.
In 1978, Bob Blair acquired a controlling share in Husky Oil. Petro-Canada and Occidental Petroleum Corp fought over Husky Oil but Nova snuck in and won in 1979 by quietly buying shares over time using a US stock exchange. (Maurice Strong, who earlier had helped establish Dome Petroleum, served as Petro-Canada’s first chairman)
The Blair went on to get control of Polysar in a hostile takeover. (Polysar was a Crown Corporation BTW)
Interestingly, right after Nova’s takeover of Polysar world prices for nearly every commodity Nova produced fell. Polyethylene, styrene and methanol dropped to 40% of the previous value.
Bayer then bought out Polysar rubber from Novacor. Bayer had been “eyeing Polysar for years.”
If I recall correctly Blair also tangled with Shell Oil over another acquisition but I no longer have the details.
CodeTech says: February 14, 2013 at 5:15 am
Pretty sure the majority of us agree that the Ozone Hole scare was, well, just a scare.
Yep, a strong sense of Déjà vu…
Dire Wolf says: February 14, 2013 at 1:57 pm
Billy Liar notes the increased ozone around the ozone “hole”. Is this possibly a sign that we have a mechanical process pushing ozone out of the center and into the periphery via circum-antarctic winds? The whole argument I have heard so far does not seem to give a reason for the increases on the periphery.
Yep, the ozone surplus that exists outside of the ozone “hole”;
http://ozoneaq.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/anim-ozspl-full.gif
is likely a dynamical effect of the stratospheric polar vortex, i.e. “The ozone hole is in the center of a spiraling mass of air over the Antarctic that is called the polar vortex. The vortex is not stationary and sometimes moves as far north as the southern half of South America, taking the ozone hole with it.”
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/HALOE-Ozone.html
This article and associated graphics help to demonstrate the dynamical effect of the polar vortex on Venus’s south pole:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/venus-polar-vortex/
This ozone hole business bothers me a bit.
If it is over the Antarctic how does it affect the amount of Uv light in Australia?
Surely, light from the sun falling on Australia comes through the atmosphere somewhere much further north than the Antarctic circle.
Or have I overlooked something?
There was a report about the ozone thinning over the northern hemisphere that the BBC offered in Feb. 2011. The scientists said there was a worrying depletion of ozone over the northern hemisphere but not to worry as it was thickening up again.
They offered two explanations: residual CFCs, and knowing this was no good they also offered that it might have had something to do with the exceptionally cold December (2010) which affected the whole northern hemisphere. This told me the effect was short-lived and could have a natural explanation.
Thick Mick says
Surely, light from the sun falling on Australia comes through the atmosphere somewhere much further north than the Antarctic circle.
Or have I overlooked something?
Henry@Mick
Just look at the graphs at the beginning of this post. Do you see that ozone is much thinner in the SH than he NH? The thinning in the NH from 1950-1995 was only about 10% but in the SH the thinning was much more spectacular, more like 50-100% plus, and then you have the hole in the antarctic where there was nothing.
These are natural processes that strongly shape the average temp.on earth. Less ozone (& others like NOx an HxOx) ) means more UV in the oceans. Water has absorbency in the UV region, meaning the UV converts to heat, immediately. So NH is benefiting from SH heat whilst also enjoying more protection for their skins.
It is amazing how this earth was put together. Each place on earth has is on its own sine wave of temp. change with wavelength of ca. 88 years, but height of temp. change being dependent on the ozone & others above.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Anyway, either way, the alert (WARNING) therefore remains out for people living in the SH to not go in the sun unprotected. Please do remember.