A new modeling based paper in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics takes on that question directly.
Of course the result is another “saved the world” moment according to some:
[ Source: http://twitter.com/AndrewDessler/status/442342191067693056 ]
I certainly don’t have a problem with reducing CFC’s, but Andrew Dessler’s comment speaks to the hero syndrome some of these scientists seem to have, which sometimes results in the “noble cause corruption of science” where the end justifies the means. Here is the paper abstract, link to full text follows.
Abstract.
Ozone depletion by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) was first proposed by Molina and Rowland in their 1974 Nature paper. Since that time, the scientific connection between ozone losses and CFCs and other ozone depleting substances (ODSs) has been firmly established with laboratory measurements, atmospheric observations, and modeling studies. This science research led to the implementation of international agreements that largely stopped the production of ODSs. In this study we use a fully-coupled radiationchemical-dynamical model to simulate a future world where ODSs were never regulated and ODS production grew at an annual rate of 3%. In this “world avoided” simulation, 17% of the globally-averaged column ozone is destroyed by 2020, and 67% is destroyed by 2065 in comparison to 1980.
Large ozone depletions in the polar region become yearround rather than just seasonal as is currently observed in the Antarctic ozone hole. Very large temperature decreases are
observed in response to circulation changes and decreased shortwave radiation absorption by ozone. Ozone levels in the tropical lower stratosphere remain constant until about
2053 and then collapse to near zero by 2058 as a result of heterogeneous chemical processes (as currently observed in the Antarctic ozone hole). The tropical cooling that triggers the ozone collapse is caused by an increase of the tropical upwelling. In response to ozone changes, ultraviolet radiation increases, more than doubling the erythemal radiation in the northern summer midlatitudes by 2060.
Full paper: http://t.co/8LRrUDb3Yf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I do have a strong suspicion about the whole CFCs issue.
As I recall, the chemical was banned on the grounds that lab tests and models showed that it could damage ozone – there were few actual observations in the field, and those which were done were inconclusive.
I also believe that the banning also came at a very convenient time for DuPont, which would otherwise have lost the patent on a very lucrative chemical, and seen other companies undercut it heavily.
I never gave the issue a lot of thought before, but it is so similar to the AGW exercise, that you have to wonder…
They took CFCs out of my asthma inhaler and replaced it with something less effective. I won’t forgive them for that.
Another modeling exercise….yawn.
cfc’s are too heavy and can not rise up, they sink rapidly, thump.
I’m extremely dubious about the whole ozone/CFC linkage. Too much reliance on lab tests and, once again, computer models, and precious little actual real world measurement. And once again based on a startlingly short observational period, we discovered the hole, and to my knowledge have no idea how natural or artificial it is. I recall reading one quote where one of the activists involved in banning CFCs saying it mattered little if it was an issue or not, that the real benefit was that banning CFCs served as a model for how to get world government type unified action accomplished. More of a trial run towards global socialist governance.
ozone depletion was another green scam. I’m sure lots of these green con artist made a fortune on it.
This is a precursor to “Ozone depletion over the Antarctic is responsible for record Antarctic sea-ice.” (Paper due late 2014) /sarc
The ozone hole hysteria calmed down, when some bright scientist realized that the holes might have been there long before discovered. The holes are located close to the magnetic poles and are affected by the stuff that the sun is throwing at us.
I might be wrong, but as far as I heard, CFCs are still produced and used i Asia …
Because they are so good at atmospheric modeling.
Aka, “messiah syndrome.” They are going to save all of us wallowing in original sin from ourselves. Because they are so visionary, doncha know.
Oh…so they proved it
snark/
I want my Freon-12 back!
The concentration of ozone in the Ozone layer is almost entirely dependent on the temperature, which is why we had ozone depletion in the 1970s.
Not long ago it was found that ozone amounts above 45km increased between 2004 and 2007 at a time of inactive sun.
The earlier observed decrease in ozone occurred during a period of active sun through solar cycles 21 to 23.
Ozone amounts control the temperature of the stratosphere and the height of the tropopause.
What has been happening since 2007 ?
The stratosphere appears to have stopped cooling around 2000 which is around the time that ozone began to recover and at the same time we descended from the active solar cycle 23 to the relatively inactive solar cycle 24.
Observations therefore suggest that the reduction of ozone and cooling stratosphere of the late 20th century was a consequence of high solar activity.
Our CFCs might have had some effect but it appears to be swamped by natural variability, rather like our emissions of CO2.
Rubbish, if analyzed using physical chemistry instead of politics:
1) The sun’s UV-radiation forms ozone from dimeric oxygen molecules of the atmosphere during the day. Ozone is unstable molecule and degrades back into dimeric oxygen during the night. This is accentuated by solstice.
2) The molecular mass of even the simplest CFC (CCl3F) is significantly heavier than that of any other atmospheric gases. They more likely to stay on the round level than to float into the stratosphere.
sunshinehours1 says:
March 8, 2014 at 10:20 am
They took CFCs out of my asthma inhaler and replaced it with something less effective. I won’t forgive them for that.
This also increased the price of the inhalers from $5 to $50, effectively eliminating it for thousands, if not millions of poor asthma sufferers.
Just like biofuels, its euthanasia of the poor.
Hal
Solar & Halogenated gases affect Ozone and Global warming
See QB Lu for an alternative theory:
Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change
QB Lu – International Journal of Modern Physics B, 2013 – World Scientific’
Now which model will prove to be more accurate?
PS See
Response by Qing-Bin Lu to “Qing-Bin Lu revives debunked claims about cosmic rays and CFCs” at Climate Science Watch
I thought it was it was now known that the rate of photolysis was too high for the hole theory.
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html
The so-called ozone hole was noted in the IGY, an early detente with the USSR that pooled science resources.
http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonelayer.htm
At one time the seasonal thinning of the ozone hole seemed to be well explained by the absence of sunlight and natural environmental factors.
The theory of CFC’s as a catalytic destroyer of ozone took hold in the 1970’s and led to a substantial ban of CFC’s over a number of years.
But the hole seems to be about the same as it ever was, raising questions about some of the current assumptions. But now ozone has also morphed into an explanation of ‘climate change’, which seems very convenient for something so far away, so difficult to measure and so subtle in its impacts……
It’s a model, so it must be true – in the same way that Kate Moss and Naomi Campbell (those well-known climatologists) are models – and everything they say is true – if not full of (or based on) ‘substance’…
Sorry to repeat this yet again but several years ago I asked a fundamental question of Cambridge university and the Max Planck institute.
The question was ‘ how do we know if there hasn’t always been an ozone hole prior to our ability to measure it from the late 1950’s?’
Both institutions admitted that they had no answer to the question and that it was possible holes had existed prior to imstrumental recordns but they thought the holes had become larger through mans actions.
Whether any means has since arisen to hind cast levels I don’t know.
Tonyb
http://drtimball.com/2012/effect-of-environmentalists-crying-wolf-over-ozone-thinning-appear/
So what is the effect of Ozone absorbing in the 9.6 micron band?
There still are more questions than asnwers in the whole CFC/ozone case…
One of the main steps in the chemical reactions leading to ozone depletion seems to be much slower than initially expected which doesn’t prove that CFC’s aren’t involved, but maybe at a much smaller rate than expected/modelled.
Further many of these reactions are taking place at the surface of ice crystals, at temperatures of minus 80°C, which only occurs seasonally around Antarctica and occasionally around the Arctic. It is there that most of the depletion happens during a few days/weeks (Arctic) to a few weeks/months (Antarctic). For the rest of the lower stratosphere there is little depletion as ozone is continually created (and destroyed) by UV light, mainly in the tropics. Despite the much thicker UV layer in the tropics, people (plants, animals) there receive 5 times more residual UV light in full sun than people at high latitudes, due to inclination and longer path through the atmosphere.
Thus the question remains where the reduction in ozone depletion / increase in UV would take place and where there would be health effect, if any…
BTW, skin cancer is mainly a question of choosing the right parents: if you live in Australia and your parents are aboriginals, there is near no chance to get skin cancer. But if you are a decendant of some pale skinned and red haired ancestors …
And indeed Dupont was quite willing to switch to HFC’s, for which they had brand new patents, while these for CFC’s were near expired…
The Montreal Protocol was the dress rehearsal for Global Warming. It worked so they thought the big one would… The link paper is 2009…????