NASA Reveals New Results From Inside the Ozone Hole – Dec. 11, 2013
NASA scientists have revealed the inner workings of the ozone hole that forms annually over Antarctica and found that declining chlorine in the stratosphere has not yet caused a recovery of the ozone hole.
More than 20 years after the Montreal Protocol agreement limited human emissions of ozone-depleting substances, satellites have monitored the area of the annual ozone hole and watched it essentially stabilize, ceasing to grow substantially larger. However, two new studies show that signs of recovery are not yet present, and that temperature and winds are still driving any annual changes in ozone hole size.
“Ozone holes with smaller areas and a larger total amount of ozone are not necessarily evidence of recovery attributable to the expected chlorine decline,” said Susan Strahan of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “That assumption is like trying to understand what’s wrong with your car’s engine without lifting the hood.”
To find out what’s been happening under the ozone hole’s hood, Strahan and Natalya Kramarova, also of NASA Goddard, used satellite data to peer inside the hole. The research was presented Wednesday at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.
Kramarova tackled the 2012 ozone hole, the second-smallest hole since the mid 1980s. To find out what caused the hole’s diminutive area, she turned to data from the NASA-NOAA Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership satellite, and gained the first look inside the hole with the satellite’s Ozone Mapper and Profiler Suite’s Limb Profiler. Next, data were converted into a map that shows how the amount of ozone differed with altitude throughout the stratosphere in the center of the hole during the 2012 season, from September through November.
The map revealed that the 2012 ozone hole was more complex than previously thought. Increases of ozone at upper altitudes in early October, carried there by winds, occurred above the ozone destruction in the lower stratosphere.
“Our work shows that the classic metrics based on the total ozone values have limitations – they don’t tell us the whole story,” Kramarova said.
The classic metrics create the impression that the ozone hole has improved as a result of the Montreal protocol. In reality, meteorology was responsible for the increased ozone and resulting smaller hole, as ozone-depleting substances that year were still elevated. The study has been submitted to the journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
Separate research led by Strahan tackled the holes of 2006 and 2011 – two of the largest and deepest holes in the past decade. Despite their similar area, however, Strahan shows that they became that way for very different reasons.
Strahan used data from the NASA Aura satellite’s Microwave Limb Sounder to track the amount of nitrous oxide, a tracer gas inversely related to the amount of ozone depleting chlorine. The researchers were surprised to find that the holes of 2006 and 2011 contained different amounts of ozone-depleting chlorine. Given that fact, how could the two holes be equally severe?
The researchers next used a model to simulate the chemistry and winds of the atmosphere. Then they re-ran the simulation with the ozone-destroying reactions turned off to understand the role that the winds played in bringing ozone to the Antarctic. Results showed that in 2011, there was less ozone destruction than in 2006 because the winds transported less ozone to the Antarctic – so there was less ozone to lose. This was a meteorological, not chemical effect. In contrast, wind blew more ozone to the Antarctic in 2006 and thus there was more ozone destruction. The research has been submitted to the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
This work shows that the severity of the ozone hole as measured by the classic total column measurements does not reveal the significant year-to-year variations in the two factors that control ozone: the winds that bring ozone to the Antarctic and the chemical loss due to chlorine.
Until chlorine levels in the lower stratosphere decline below the early 1990s level – expected sometime after 2015 but likely by 2030 – temperature and winds will continue to dictate the variable area of the hole in any given year. Not until after the mid 2030s will the decline stratospheric chlorine be the primary factor in the decline of ozone hole area.
“We are still in the period where small changes in chlorine do not affect the area of the ozone hole, which is why it’s too soon to say the ozone hole is recovering,” Strahan said. “We’re going into a period of large variability and there will be bumps in the road before we can identify a clear recovery.”
Related Links
› NASA Goddard’s Ozone Hole Watch website
… this part choked again …
It begins:
and the last part:
So, worst case, take the 1935 date and add 20 years (patent lifetime) and the result is 1955. The patent, if valid in 1935, would have expired
in 1955 (if not before because of an earlier patent filing/grant date).
.
The CFC-induced ozone hole issue was what got my skepticism started. I was working in a research lab at the time this started getting in the news. Had a physicist on staff who did his thesis on work with CFC’s and ballons. He thought it was all a bunch of hooey, but went along for the funding. Yes, there is an ozone hole at the poles in the Winter and into the Spring until sunlight returns and starts splitting oxygen atoms again. As it was ever thus.
The CFC caused Ozone depletion scare was brought to us by the same people that created the DDT scare and then went on to create the CO2 / AGW scare. People with NO scientific ability and an agenda to STOP the progress of western civilization.
The thinning of bird egg shells was caused by Lead ( mostly Tetra ethyl lead ) contamination.
The Ozone hole is a feature of polar circulation and has always existed.
Man made Global Warming is caused by manipulation of the local environment and test regimes by man. CO2 has nothing to do with it.
Science has been overrun by agenda driven propagandists. GIGO pg
I’m still trying to figure out how Freon that is heavier than air was able to climb into the sky and continue to climb through less and less dense air and then travel from the northern hemispere to the South Pole.
[Reply: Two words: Brownian motion. ~mod]
This is the same problem over and over again. Make short term measurements of complex long term phenomena and extrapolate to disaster. It would be like a one dimensional being attempting to describe a three dimensional apple – completely ludicrous but we see these “experts” do it time and again.
On DDT, it is little wonder that pelicans had problems with it and have now recovered – people were dumping it everywhere in the post war (WWII) era. All that really needed to happen with DDT is a tightening up of label usage instructions, education of the user populations, and harsh penalties for off-label usage. As it stands now, an awful lot of preventable malaria cases occur that could have been stopped with a very targeted use of DDT.
TalentKeyHole Mole says:
December 11, 2013 at 7:09 pm
Kind of like trying to compare land survey measurement where the measurements, old and new, have no benchmarks nor any common, i.e. joint benchmark system by which to make a comparison. Therefore the old and the new are equally rubbish.
==============
It was never about the measurements, only the intent of the lands borders as described.
Surveyors are good at measuring, land title(s) are a whole other matter.
“Good fences make good neighbors.” (Robert Frost)
Care to try for another analogy, cus this one hits a nerve.
(benchmark is a term used in determining elevations, not boundaries).
Why rubbish ?, how precise do you want your measures , of the imprecise legal descriptions of the property transferred ?
Does anyone remember that the UV was supposed to reach the earth via that ozone hole over the Arctic. If you think about it that is impossible. Radiation from the sun is passing that area at a tangent and would have to do a 90 degree turn to reach even Tasmania. I don’t believe that is possible. The hole in the ozone layer was a hoax like AGW. It was just practice, getting their act together for the main event.
JPM
DocattheAutopsy – AFAIK you are correct in thinking that there never was anything that the ozone hole had to recover from. Add in climate madness, DDT, useless wiggly light bulbs and mandatory unreliables, and the world’s need for a dose of reality has rarely been greater.
Bill_W says:
December 11, 2013 at 4:30 pm
I have my doubts about the DDT story as well, but pelicans have definitely come back in LA and I think elsewhere. Has anyone seen explanations of this that do not involve DDT? I have not looked into the papers that linked DDT to weak shells, but have been meaning to.
———————-
Hi Bill,
The problem with Rachel Carson’s construction of the pesticide problem is that DDT was not the only pesticide being used. Also introduced after the Second World War were a whole class of pesticides based on the nerve gases (organophosphate-derivatives) invented by IG Farben’s scientists around the time the war was beginning. Modifications of these led to pesticides like Aldrin (dieldrin), malathion, parathion and several others.
These were sprayed with great enthusiasm across the cotton fields of the south, and have been documented to have poisoned agricultural workers. Men flying crop dusters tended to have life-ending accidents with a much higher frequency than men piloting other airplanes. Even a light breeze can carry pesticide aerosols up to 15 miles away.
With such a cocktail of toxins being flung around the countryside, I cannot understand why Carson became fixated on DDT when there were so many possible culprits the the disappearance of birds. Probably researchers looking for DDT traces in raptor eggs did not bother controlling for other pesticides because they already knew the source of the problem.
It sounds like I don’t need to repeat the sentiment that maybe CFCs have nothing to do with the hole. But I must ask: do they want me to believe, living in Australia, where the sun shines from the north, that I get burnt because the sun rays swing around to the south, through the ozone hole, and then come roaring up the Antarctic Ocean to my little patch down under? I don’t think so!
Billyjack says:
December 11, 2013 at 8:01 pm
I’m still trying to figure out how Freon that is heavier than air was able to climb into the sky and continue to climb through less and less dense air and then travel from the northern hemisphere to the South Pole.
Individual gas molecules are not affected by buoyancy forces like a stone or a tree in water. By diffusion, gas molecules emitted in one place on Earth can end up anywhere, given enough time. It is not as if Freon somehow decides to go from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere. It is just that it diffuses all over the place, but when it encounters ozone and extremely low temperatures, it may cause reactions that do not occur in warmer places.
If gases were to react to buoyancy, then an ozone molecule of O3 would promptly fall to Earth since its mass of 48 is higher than the average mass of air molecules which is 29 since it is composed of 78% N2 (mass 28) and 21% O2 (mass 32).
Perhaps laws and tightened enforcement against hunting them? The US started taking species protection a lot more seriously beginning in the 1960s.
Pelicans fly in straight lines, sit still on the water, and I imagine they would be very easy to shoot.
Ozone holes come and go. There are, as far as I understand it, almost entirely a natural event. Certainly there has been scientists that supposedly researched this as a man-made phenomena, but as usual with modern versions of science, they mostly had an agenda to satisfy.
Yes, molecular collisions will keep differently-massed molecules well mixed until the air is much more rarefied. But molecular weight does play a role, especially with heavier molecules like Freon-12 (molecular weight 133). Getting such heavy molecules into the stratosphere requires a lot of anti-gravitational diffusion.
Also, look at this video of the movement of carbon monoxide, with sources locations in populated areas similar to those of CFCs. Not much crosses the equator, much less gets to the Antarctic.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap010709.html
scarletmacaw says:
December 11, 2013 at 9:56 pm
“Pelicans fly in straight lines, sit still on the water, and I imagine they would be very easy to shoot.”
=====================
Get us a close up (shootable) shot of a pelican in the wild, and we’ll talk 🙂
I’ve been within 3-400 yards of a flock in a nature preserve, the shot might skip off the water even if it was low 🙂
Is there a way to post a personal picture here? I have a photo of a pelican sitting on the water about 20 ft. away. Of course that one was probably used to people and maybe even got a free fish every now and then. No doubt pelicans would have been a lot harder to get close to in the days when they were hunted.
I remember Ronald Reagan signing Montreal Protocol in the 80’s. Then the theory, or scare du jour, was that CFC’s emitted in the northern hemisphere were accumulating over the southern pole. Given ozone is created and destroyed constantly and is diamagnetic I found the claim to be very dubious.
But here in Australia he is being praised as some accidental climate change warrior.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/how-ronald-reagan-won-an-unlikely-battle-against-climate-change-and-why-the-world-should-follow-his-example-now-20131210-2z2pt.html
scarletmacaw says:
December 11, 2013 at 10:31 pm
===========
ok, when I fished on lakes in northern Minnesota, we couldn’t (not that we tried ) get within 100 yards of a pelican, they would leave.
Where was yours ?
This explains the logical fallacy of the CFC scare quite well.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/ozone/king.htm
“Newly discovered greenhouse gas ’7,000 times more powerful than CO2′”
Cool, I’m always looking for IR stimulant gases that the greens haven’t banned yet.
vigilantfish says:
December 11, 2013 at 8:48 pm
Bill_W says:
December 11, 2013 at 4:30 pm
I have my doubts about the DDT story as well, but pelicans have definitely come back in LA and I think elsewhere. Has anyone seen explanations of this that do not involve DDT? I have not looked into the papers that linked DDT to weak shells, but have been meaning to.
———————-
Hi Bill,
The problem with Rachel Carson’s construction of the pesticide problem is that DDT was not the only pesticide being used. Also introduced after the Second World War were a whole class of pesticides based on the nerve gases (organophosphate-derivatives) invented by IG Farben’s scientists around the time the war was beginning. Modifications of these led to pesticides like Aldrin (dieldrin), malathion, parathion and several others.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Interesting how people focused on DDT. It probably was a focus In Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring”. However when I read it in the mid 60’s and wrote an engineering term paper on it, my ‘Take Away’ was concern over organophosphates. I got the bit on DDT and birds eggs, but when I read the book, did some research, I ended up focussing on the potential damage from the misuse or overuse of organophosphates. In addition, the interaction between organochlorines and organophosphates was thought to be a possible big problem (that is still being researched: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X12002260 ) The combination of the two chemicals is thought to enhance neuro disruption, emulate estrogens, endocrine and other hormonal issues along with our old friend cancer and lung problems. It’s 46 years since I wrote that term paper and they are still studying. It’s why I look like an astronaut when I go out to spray fields. I guess it’s like Ozone depletion and AGW – we don’t really know except we have to appear to be doing something. Isn’t that what they told us in management school? “Lead, follow, or get out of the way.” Politicians have to appear to be taking action as they only have 3 to 5 years to convince us that we should re-elect them.
Wow, this thread is making me cynical.
Well, off to bed to rest up to shovel some more AGW tomorrow.
I have in the back of my mind the memory of reading an article wherein one of the originators of the ban CFC campaign, a chemist, admitted that actually the reactions proposed as the method for ozone destruction simply could not take place. Alas, it was one of those articles that I failed to archive or bookmark – it was some time ago now. Does anyone else remember this, or am I mistaken?
This issue is an example of the complete ignorance displayed by many people from both sides of the AGW argument.
I have been involved in studying this for over 20 years, right from the time I was told I couldn’t use the common refrigerants that I was used to using, to today where people assert that the whole thing was a hoax, and the Montreal Protocol was unnecessary.
I consider myself an amateur historian and when I was first confronted with the problem of the Ozone hole, I had my doubts about its cause and origin so I began researching the history. I learned that the first time it was known about was during the International Geophysical Year (IGY) of 1957-58. At the time it was not known what caused it or even how significant it was. Although the presence of the ozone hole was known about, it wasn’t until a study published by Farman, Gardiner and Shanklin in Nature, 1985, that the so-called ‘discovery’ of the hole was acknowledged. One interesting thing about that study was that data of the actual measurements of the Ozone layer began in 1978 with the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS). So, the seven years from 1978 to 1985, when the study came out, showed that the hole was increasing in size. Subsequent data from TOMS showed that the hole continued to increase in each subsequent year.
Hypothesis’ abounded about what the cause could be. Examination of the atmospheric chemistry showed that, while ozone is created on a continual basis by the photochemical reaction of oxygen with UV light, chlorine acted as a catalyst in the destruction of ozone and as a limiting factor in the amount of ozone in the atmosphere. A catalyst acts by continuing a chemical process without being destroyed or removed by the reaction, so as long as chlorine was present in the atmosphere, the destruction of ozone would continue, and would increase if the amount of chlorine in the atmosphere increased. As several people pointed out, chlorine is present in large quantities due to the presence of sodium chloride in the oceans, as well as in volcanic emissions. That accounts for the ‘natural’ presence of chlorine and demonstrates that the hole was probably always present. The problem is that the hole increased in size, which would indicate that the amount of chlorine in the atmosphere increased beyond what was natural. What was the cause of this increase?
In this case the most obvious source for the increase of chlorine was anthropogenic in origin – specifically Chlorinated Fluoro Carbons – (CFCs). CFCs are doubly implicated, because, not only are they a source of chlorine, but they are very stable molecules, with a long residence time in the atmosphere, where, due to mixing, they can reach the stratosphere to interact with ozone on a long term basis.
At this point, I have to state that I was originally very skeptical about the role of CFCs in the Ozone hole – for exactly the same reasons as many of the people responding to this article have stated. The evidence of the chemical reactions involved changed my opinion about the role of CFCs, and I became convinced that they were contributing to the decrease in the ozone layer. I was still not convinced (and remain that way) of the total effect that CFCs have on the size of the hole, because, it was subsequently learned that the lower temperatures at the south polar regions were the reason that the ozone hole in Antarctica was always larger than the one in the Arctic.
This becomes the point where we talk about the Montreal Protocol. Since CFCs are clearly a contributor to the decrease in ozone, it now becomes about what to do with CFCs. At this point I have to say that the typical overreaction to threats occurred. The Montreal Protocol took an extreme point of view that CFCs should be banned. Although I don’t agree with their conclusion, I am forced to go along with their decision. To this end, the results of their decision are correct – CFC concentrations have reduced and ozone concentrations have increased. The big thing is, that because of the residence time of CFCs in the atmosphere, and the contributing factor of low temperatures, the absolute results of the Montreal Protocol will not be seen in the size of the ozone hole in Antarctica until 2030.
Much like the current global warming ‘hiatus’ – actual results from this will not be known immediately and must wait until a good proportion of the current subscribers to this blog are dead.
I’m sorry it this doesn’t agree with some people’s prejudged opinions about the ozone hole and the Montreal Protocol, but the information is freely available on the internet if you are willing to spend the time to investigate. The final thing is that the Montreal Protocol, despite its incorrect analysis, was a success in halting the increase in the size of the hole. Whether the hole will decrease in size to its natural limits remains to be seen.
Thanks for your review of the path leading to the Montreal statist extreme overreaction . I think the banning of asthma inhalers for a gram or two of CFCs is misanthropic tyranny .
Particularly because , whatever rate of destruction or removal of O3 , it remains the case that it is the dissociation of O2 which is the reaction which absorbs the sun’s UV . The depletion only occurs , or ever will occur over the sunless winter poles . It will never affect human populations — or even penguins .
And as Barrie Sellers , December 12, 2013 at 8:00 am
According to other research CFC’s have no effect on the ozone hole. This is caused by solar activity.