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
You present a very good summary.
The correlation between CFC production and the decrease in ozone levels at the south pole do provide evidence that CFCs are the cause. But we don’t have any measurements before CFCs were introduced into the atmosphere, so there’s no definitive proof.
There is one other comment I’d like to make. As far as I know, no one has ever actually detected CFCs in the stratosphere. I remember reading that a satellite was launched to measure CFCs in the stratosphere, but got a null result and the results were then suppressed. I don’t know whether or not that story is true.
Brian,
Obviously you are not a scientific skeptic [the alternative is a True Believer].
Skeptics simply require testable proof. That’s all. So far, there is no proof that “carbon” causes global warming. In fact, there is only solid evidence that global warming causes a rise in CO2.
You need to straighten out your thinking. Think: testable evidence. If it’s not there… be very skeptical.
ferd berple says:
December 12, 2013 at 6:46 am
“Where did all the ozone go? these pictures tell the tale:
http://www.jhu.edu/~dwaugh1/gallery/ozone_rdf.jpg
http://www.jhu.edu/~dwaugh1/gallery/crista-anim.gif
The hole is not a result of ozone being destroyed. It is a result of ozone being transported from the poles to lower latitudes.”
ferd berple, you have come closest to recognizing an element of my hypothesis (my post of 603 am):
” the only gas in the atmosphere that is magnetic is O2 (strongly paramagnetic) – it is attracted to the poles. ALL OTHER GASES ARE DIAMAGNETIC – REPULSED BY A MAGNETIC FIELD. If I am correct that this explains the ozone hole, then there should also be an N2 hole, CO2 hole and a Noble Elements hole at the poles (north pole is confounded by busier outside weather incursions). As a corollary, we should find the atmosphere at the equator somewhat impoverished in O2 and enriched in all the others. Probably biological activity confounds this simple picture but we could use noble gases as a tracer and some atmospheric analysis of the ozone hole to see if it is richer in O2 and impoverished in all other gases, of course including ozone.”
It has to have some effect and it is measurable and testable.
dbstealey says: “Obviously you are not a scientific skeptic [the alternative is a True Believer].”
There is another alternative: conspiracy theorist. I am not a “True Believer” or a conspiracy theorist.
Brian,
Nor, it seems, are you a scientific skeptic.
Upon which empire was it said that ‘the sun never set’? Perhaps it was the desire to communicate with her majesty’s fleet ’round the world which spurred this research:
“On the Diurnal Variations of the Electric Waves Occurring in Nature, and on the Propagation of Electric Waves Round the Bend of the Earth”
By W. H. Eccles, D.Sc, A.RC.Sc
Proceedings of the Royal Society, vol. 87A, pp. 79-99; August 13, (1912).
https://archive.org/details/philtrans03035940
Also an interesting read:
“The Relation of Radio Sky-Wave Transmission to Ionosphere Measurements”
NEWBERN SMITHt, 1938, NONMEMBER, I.R.E
http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/2416.pdf
.
This sounds remarkably like Dr. Benjamin Spock, only his line was “my first book was wrong, but my new book has it right.” Sort of like “earlier simulations were off the mark, but OUR simulation has it right, so rest assured, CFCs are still the devil. Psst. Hand me another grant please?”
I thought you were going to work out the ‘forces’ exerted on these molecules, then compare that force with the force that the winds exert?
.
Barrie Sellers says:
December 12, 2013 at 8:00 am
I’ve pointed this out before – and maybe others have too – ozone is an unstable substance with a half life dependent on the temperature: at -30 degrees C the half life is 3 months. And there’s your ozone hole. Always has been there always will be there CFCs or no CFCs.
Not to mention that the abundance of ozone is inversely proportional to the amount of incident UV radiation (that is the touted purpose of ozone after all, isn’t it…to protect us from harmful UV radiation?). Having said that, don’t the polar regions experience long periods of either complete darkness or long periods of sunlight? Wouldn’t those changes in incident UV radiation also have a direct impact on the abundance of atmospheric ozone present? No CFC mechanism required to explain variations in ozone concentrations.
scarletmacaw says:
December 11, 2013 at 10:13 pm
Thank you for that. At the following, I saw two seemingly contradictory statements:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide
“Carbon monoxide concentrations are both short-lived in the atmosphere and spatially variable.
Due to its long lifetime in the mid-troposphere, carbon monoxide is also used as tracer of transport for pollutant plumes.”
I am not sure what to make of them. But is it possible that the CO disappears too fast for many of the molecules to make it to the southern parts?
Gary Pearse says:
December 12, 2013 at 9:33 am
the only gas in the atmosphere that is magnetic is O2 (strongly paramagnetic) – it is attracted to the poles
I could be wrong, but that does not sound right to me. Consider a compass for example. The needle orientates itself to point to the magnetic north pole, but the compass as a whole does not move.
Now suppose we have lots of extremely tiny magnetized iron filings that we disperse into the air. They would orientate themselves, but any net attraction to the north pole would be minimal. Yes, the one side is closer to the north pole than the other and due to the inverse square law, attraction would in theory be stronger than repulsion, but air currents and Brownian motion would be way stronger in my opinion. And gas molecules of O2 are even smaller, so I do not believe that it would make a difference, even if O2 were ferromagnetic.
The “ozone hole” is a ntural occurrence, every late winter i the SoHem, August, starrts with one. Its extension or not depends on the condition in the troposphere.
wbrozek says:
December 12, 2013 at 11:10 am
Gary Pearse says:
December 12, 2013 at 9:33 am
the only gas in the atmosphere that is magnetic is O2 (strongly paramagnetic) – it is attracted to the poles
“I could be wrong, but that does not sound right to me.”:
I believe you are wrong; from wiki on the mag field:
“The intensity of the magnetic field is greatest near the magnetic poles[1] where it is vertical. The intensity of the field is weakest near the equator where it is horizontal.”
And regarding separating O2 from diamagnetic gases:
http://pe.org.pl/articles/2012/7b/11.pdf
“he data indicate that the gas species O2 and NO are strongly paramagnetic; this is in contrast to most other gases, which are weakly diamagnetic, and to a few ones that are weakly paramagnetic. Hence, O2 and NO might be economically separated from gas mixtures, such as air or flue gases, by passing the mixture through a magnetic field having a strong gradient.”
Note that diamagnetic materials are inert; they are actively repelled by the magnetic field. Also, Brownian movements are random and air currents away from the poles will move the other gases away faster and toward the poles will further retard O2.
_Jim says:
December 12, 2013 at 10:33 am
Gary Pearse says December 12, 2013 at 9:33 am
…
” the only gas in the atmosphere that is magnetic is O2 (strongly paramagnetic) – it is attracted to the poles. ALL OTHER GASES ARE DIAMAGNETIC –
I thought you were going to work out the ‘forces’ exerted on these molecules, then compare that force with the force that the winds exert?”
Jim, I already noted that the arctic has much more intrusive weather from the outside and so it would confound the results somewhat. Such a tossing off of the outside-the-box thinking of mine is not much of a contribution. I have also provided the tests for falsifying this. How else would you explain an N2 hole, noble gases hole and CO2 hole if there is one. Also, although the equatorial region would have biological effects on CO2, look for higher N2 and noble gases there and explain it to me in some other way. Then you have made a contribution.
Oops should say: Note that diamagnetic materials are NOT inert
Just think you’re paying for every single government employee spammage of this drivel laced with voodoo passed off as “Maybe I’m wrong but you, shut up.”
After all what do you know about science. Didn’t the government tell you pot is heroin?
Well: since you don’t understand climate and you don’t know pot from heroin I think it’s best if the government goes ahead and takes over all your medications.
After all your track record is so terrible you can’t be trusted. The government’s going to run your life, and you’re going to pay government employees to do it. If you don’t the full weight of government is going to come down on you,
until you realize who is here,
to serve whom.
@dbstealey
Why not?
Perhaps at the equator; near one or the other poles it could ‘move’ were it not for the friction of the ‘mount’ normally enclosing the compass. Also recall that iron filings will attach themselves to a magnet if allowed to (say, if the attractive force is allowed to overcome the force of gravity)
Also bear in mind this factor is operative:
Also see: “Practical Information on the Deviation of the Compass: For the Use of Masters and Mates of Iron Ships”
Possibly this falls In the category of ‘things I never knew” (and didn’t need to!)
.
Gary Pearse says:
December 12, 2013 at 11:46 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_field
“Earth’s surface ranges from 25 to 65 micro Tesla”
In your Table 2, the range is from 25 to 750,000 milliT. So the lowest number here is about 1000 times stronger than Earth’s magnetic field. Is that right? And the highest is 10 million times larger if my math is right. Furthermore, this is all still theoretical according to the title.
If normal diffusion overcomes gravity to allow CFCs to reach the stratosphere, then I see no way that gases in the atmosphere will be affected by any magnetic field as low as Earth’s.
How do you mentally go about simply turning a ” can you show me your work* ” request into ” you’re just engaging in con spiracy theories ” meme? Is there a handbook available to do this sort of thing?
.
.
.
* Since these governments are bound and determined to taxing the living daylights out of us BASED on that work by those so-called scientists! I wanna see their work before forking over my hard-earned wages! Perhaps, you don’t …
.
_Jim says:
December 12, 2013 at 1:11 pm
Also recall that iron filings will attach themselves to a magnet if allowed to (say, if the attractive force is allowed to overcome the force of gravity)
Very true. But would oxygen molecules attach themselves to this same magnet which has a force much stronger than the magnetic force of Earth?
re: wbrozek says December 12, 2013 at 1:24 pm
…
Very true. But would oxygen molecules attach themselves to this same magnet which has a force much stronger than the magnetic force of Earth?
I’m not far enough along on that theory to comment one way or the other. I’m thinking like you above that other factors prevail in the case of the earth and its poles, however.
.
scarletmacaw says:
December 12, 2013 at 9:00 am
There is one other comment I’d like to make. As far as I know, no one has ever actually detected CFCs in the stratosphere. I remember reading that a satellite was launched to measure CFCs in the stratosphere, but got a null result and the results were then suppressed. I don’t know whether or not that story is true.
Very interesting point.
It is known that low temperature are causing “ozone holes”. There has been one recently in the north due to very cold temperatures in the Arctic:
http://www.iceagenow.com/Cold_weather_destroying_ozone_in_the_Arctic.htm
“The ozone layer has seen unprecedented damage in the Arctic this winter due to cold weather in the upper atmosphere,”
With the Antarctic colder it is simply logical the “hole” is there bigger in winter:
“Usually in cold winters we observe that about 25% of the ozone disappears, but this winter was really a record – 40% of the column has disappeared,” said Dr Florence Goutail from the French National Centre for Scientific Research.
The alarmism was great at the time:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/04/ozone-hole-and-global-warming-evolution.html
and ignored the fact that the “hole” was discovered in the 50s:
http://junkscience.com/2012/04/08/exclusive-british-polar-research-in-crisis/
“Dobson described an ozone monitoring program that began at Halley Bay in 1956.
When the data began to arrive, “the values in September and October 1956 were about 150 [Dobson] units lower than expected. … In November the ozone values suddenly jumped up to those expected. … It was not until a year later, when the same type of annual variation was repeated, that we realized that the early results were indeed correct and that Halley Bay showed a most interesting difference from other parts of the world.” ”
And natural part of the process was not known & ignored:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n6767/full/403295a0.html
“A strong source of methyl chloride to the atmosphere from tropical coastal land”
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html
http://junksciencearchive.com/Ozone/ozone_seasonal.html
So, there might something to debunk with the “ozone hole” story even if the chemistry of CFC might fit, I think that some CFC’s should be discovered in the stratosphere to confirm the theory, else…
A couple of years ago, it was finally admitted that the “science” that claimed that CFCs caused ozone destruction in the upper atmosphere over Antarctica was false and fabricated by DuPont to promote an expensive replacement they had lined up already under patent. Now, a bit over 17 years later, they say, “We bad. We were wrong.”
The ozone hole is driven by the solar irradiance interacting with nitrogen in the atmosphere. It’s totally unrelated to CFCs.
_Jim,
the article you cited claiming that the patent for CFCs expired in the 50s appears to be wrong and misleading. Wikipedia appears to have it right:
Got any patent numbers we can look up to confirm the dates on any of this?
You know, patents back to the 30’s are available online today …
.