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
So we have the fictional confirmation of the fictional success of an all too real and expensive solution to a fictional problem. This could only be considered good news by those who do not live in the real world!
One of the issues I have is how these theories are presented or sold to the world.
They are marketed in a way that convinces targets of the marketing that this is proven, rock solid, settled science. They want people to put a speculative theory in the same category as gravity or the earth revolving around the sun or………..photosynthesis(never mind that last one, photosynthesis has become the Rodney Dangerfield of the science world).
Instead of being honest about the authentic level of confidence/speculation based on empirical data, a plan is put into place that misrepresents this level, 95% and 97% are two often used levels of confidence about a theory that supposedly had it’s science settled and the debate was over 6 years ago.
Yet, most of the evidence since the “science was settled” and the debate was supposed to be over has been very lopsided in favor of the side that was supposed to be silenced for questioning the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
It’s clear that there are large groups with tremendous control that see their responsibility as being that of determining what is and what is not settled science and what will be done about it. Then, they aggressively exert their powerful influence to dominate/control in order to accomplish their agenda(s).
This is how the world has always worked in general for centuries but science is not supposed to be this way.
Of course Dupont’s patent running out on CFC’s had nothing to do with banning CFC’s, so that people had to instead buy Duponts more expensive, patented CFC replacement.
It was all simply a big coincidence, a conspiracy theory dreamed up by CFC deniers. the science is settled. We know that CFC’s and only CFC’s can explain the Ozone hole. It isn’t like there is a Polar Vortex scrubbing the poles of Ozone. It is simply a coincidence that the same polar vortex is found on other planets with an atmosphere. Such a vortex is physically impossible on earth. We know this from models. Thus, it must be CFC’s.
I agree with Ferdinand Engelbeen’s comments and also remain skeptic on the exclusive role attributed to the CFC’s (BTW Ferdinand, there is one glitch in your comment: “Besides the much thicker UV layer in the tropics…” should be “ozone layer…”.)
Nevertheless, the increase in ground level UVB with a thinning ozone layer is easy to observe: see my recent comment here:
http://meteolcd.wordpress.com/2014/03/08/raf-revisited-total-ozone-column-and-uvi/
which shows very recent measurements at meteoLCD (Diekirch, Luxembourg).
Sounds a lot like the DDT soft eggshell scam.
Dessler claims “we saved your lives”, but the truth, as with the DDT ban and the CO2 inanity was increased death, disease and poverty from banning CFCs. The cost of storage and transport of refrigerated medicines and food in the developing world increased due to actions of gangrene-caped crusaders like Dessler.
Ozone levels are controlled by solar variation. Even before satellites, the data from sounding rockets led the russians to surmise that ozone would be thin if not non-existent over the poles. Now we know volcanic bromine would have a vastly greater effect than human CFCs if such trace gases were even capable of effecting ozone being created an destroyed on a daily basis.
The good news is that the pre-internet sucesses the greens achieved in increasing world misery have encouraged them to stick their necks right out this time. Every one of them is now compromised by global warming advocacy and a permanent record of vilifying sceptics. Green crusader Dessler is about to find out that that green cape is actually a putrefing albatross and “Noble cause” is no shield when you have called sceptics “Holocaust Deniers” to silence them.
Andrew Dressler says “You guys cried wolf about ozone depletion. Actually we saved your lives.”
Good thing they didn’t get all of their CO2 regulations and restrictions in place back around 2000. Dressler would be pointing to the pause right now and claiming that they once again saved our lives for the second time. Instead, with the same data that they would be pointing to and claiming they saved us all, they are pointing at and saying we are all going to die.
Would “Holy Wildcat” have won the upcoming race at Gulfstream Park had my bet on him not jinxed him ??
Results in 3 minutes 🙂
Before Al Gore was off on Global Warming, he was off on (in?) the Ozone Hole.
Enough said.
Apparently a few people think it would be impossible for kites to fly as they are heavier than air.
Agree Stephen, it is the solar that is causing the variations of ozone imo also
From ‘DDT’ to ‘PCB’ to ‘acid rain’ to ‘alar’ to ‘ozone’ to ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ the watermelon globalists have led us from panic to panic – abandoning each “catastrophe” as the initial scare subsides. Witch hunting in the 21st century.
I have always been puzzled by the Southern Ozone Hole’s size when most of the CFC we’re used up North! And also why it varies so much during the year when CFC are no longer used.
Francis Massen
Nevertheless, the increase in ground level UVB with a thinning ozone layer is easy to observe: see my recent comment here:
Henry says
this is something that I am still investigating
we know that solar activity varies, causing a little shift within TSI
More extreme UV would seem to cause more ozone (&peroxides & others)
more ozone & others deflects more UVB to space
The opposite would cause exactly what you say has been observed…
There are large short term variations in the ozone concentration but don’t let that take away your eyes from the long term trends.
it all comes back to what I have already proven from observed measurements.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
A very important development – the influential (among politicians, business leaders and senior government and institutional employees) Economist magazine has published this article:
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21598610-slowdown-rising-temperatures-over-past-15-years-goes-being
Titled “Who pressed the pause button?
The slowdown in rising temperatures over the past 15 years goes from being unexplained to overexplained” it goes on to mention many of the competing explanations. I don’t know how reassured they will be by the final paragraph:
“The solar cycle is already turning. And aerosol cooling is likely to be reined in by China’s anti-pollution laws. Most of the circumstances that have put the planet’s temperature rise on “pause” look temporary. Like the Terminator, global warming will be back.”
Explaining the pause twice over takes some explaining away. Thinking readers may start to question their advisers.
They can model what they want but we will never know. Some say the Ozone hole was always there. Fancy that!
R. Shearer says:
March 8, 2014 at 1:17 pm
I have a kite. Last time I looked it was still lying on the garage floor.
The ozone hole was discovered during IGY (International Geophysical Year) back in 1957 – before there was substantial amounts of freon. I was told this back in 1974 – by someone who participated in IGY. The whole scam is the same old thing. Sheep going blind due to uV – a pink eye epidemic. CFCs escaping from airconditioners and refrigerators in the nothern hemisphere sneaking down to the antarctic where these rather heavy molecules were magically lifted up against gravity to go up into the stratosphere where they were disassociated into chlorine atoms while ocean spray chlorine ions were washed out of the atmosphere by rain just like the chlorine atoms injected into the stratosphere by an active volcano down there.
A researcher back in the 80s from Cato Inst. followed the money and discovered that DuPont had been funding the whackos so that freon 12 would be banned since it was nice, efficient, safe, and running out of patent protection and unfortunately, the replacement was not efficient, not safe, and not inexpensive to produce.
It couldn’t have been the competition, nor any track bias, that relegated the horse into 4th place,
it was the jinx 🙂
I’ll stop now.
CFCs are amazing molecules. They are emitted in an ozone rich environment, and despite being highly reactive, they eschew the “dirty” ozone from our tail pipes, defy gravity, and then fly up above the troposphere to munch on the much tastier ozone deposited by lightning in our upper atmosphere.
This molecule exhibits preference and mobility. Could it be a new life form?
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/twentyquestions/Q2.pdf
“Stratospheric ozone is formed
naturally by chemical reactions involving solar ultraviolet
radiation (sunlight) and oxygen molecules, which make up
21% of the atmosphere. In the first step, solar ultraviolet
radiation breaks apart one oxygen molecule (O2) to produce
two oxygen atoms (2 O) (see Figure Q2-1). In the second step,
each of these highly reactive atoms combines with an oxygen
molecule to produce an ozone molecule (O3). These reactions
occur continually whenever solar ultraviolet radiation is present
in the stratosphere. As a result, the largest ozone production
occurs in the tropical stratosphere.”
Conversely, because there is naturally far less sunlight, the smallest ozone production will occur at the poles i.e. there has and always will be, holes at the poles.
Scam, scam, scam!
I think due to the millions of babies the Left has murdered, there tiny bit of humanity in these
soul-less monsters, that they want to claim they have saved someone- anyone.
We need some sort of “actual data” publishing service to help research the core facts behind a *large variety* of claims. Every time I try to do it, I get a “look at this paper” which refers to other papers which refer to other papers which refer to other papers ad nauseam.
I keep seeing model results referenced as readings and hypotheticals later taken as results. This is far from limited to climate science, medical science is at least equally polluted.
A lot of supposedly otherwise-trained people seem to be producing what they think they should produce instead of accurate and repeatable results.
Pittzer says:
March 8, 2014 at 1:39 pm
CFCs are amazing molecules. …..defy gravity
Individual gas molecules do not obey the laws of buoyancy like objects in water. Gas molecules diffuse all over the place when mingling with other gas molecules. It is just that when CFCs get to extremely cold places like above Antarctica in winter, they take part in certain reactions. All gas molecules from helium to radon mix more or less evenly where the atmosphere is thickest. The only exception is water since it condenses out at a certain temperature. Of course, the concentration has to be right as well. If there are too few water molecules, then two water molecules may not meet so then cannot condense out. That is why extremely low concentrations of water can be found very high up.
As for defying gravity, if we had a perfect vacuum on earth and some CFCs evaporated, the molecules would promptly fall to earth.
Here are some thought provoking papers on ozone and CFCs. [News articles link to papers]