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
Dennis Hand on March 8, 2014 at 11:36 am
You’ve got it right …! There’s more to it though. LPG works almost as good as CFCs as a cooling agent, but that’s natural and therefore can’t be patented, so it isn’t allowed for this purpose. Just in “favour” for the industrial production … (Yes, no problems with refilling AC/ACC’s in vehicles with LPG instead of the expensive and patented R134a, but that’s not legal at least in EU … (Don’t forget the lubricator for the compressor!) Safety issues? Well, the combo refrigerator/freezer in my kitchen scares me far more, as it can leak at any time … [/sarc last sentence])
ferdberple on March 8, 2014 at 12:56 pm
Very good sarc!
MarkW on March 8, 2014 at 2:16 pm
It’s in the same category as “The Forest (acid) Death” and “AGW” – plain political/economical scam.
Ian on March 8, 2014 at 1:22 pm
Most possible due to natural causes, just as the climate change naturally … It’s too complex, so no one knows enough to explain, even though some persistently try to claim they do. Conservatism don’t exist in nature … When people would like to know, but can’t find answers for events in their surroundings, very often happens that they rely on faith – a very, very old tradition that can be traced to the human species’ “childhood … but we should know better today …(?)
The fact that NASA pushed the false meme that the ozone hole first opened up in 1985 (the first time it was observed from a satellite) suggests to me that they had a weak case, and needed to beef it up, much like the AGW folks did with Mann’s hockey stick. They ignored Dobson’s ground-based measurements starting in 1956, prior to widespread use of CFC’s. I call BS on the whole thing.
I did read that this was one of those ‘scientists’ sat round a desk for one afternoon and deciding things, which must have gone something like :
There is a hole in the ozone layer
We must be responsible
CFCs can affect ozone
CFCs are destroying the ozone layer
QED
End of ‘science’ [Not that it started]
The ozone layer had just been investigated so there was no previous knowledge. Absolutely no investigation as to whether the holes were natural, just the assumption that we were somehow responsible. After all why would ozone, caused by the Sun’s rays, be less at the poles? It just doesn’t make sense!!! No scientist could EVER think this was a natural event. IT MUST BE MANKIND’S FAULT!
I think this is when the Greens realised the politicians were complete idiots and would swallow anything, like CAGW. They could get away with anything barring a complete collapse of Western economies. Luckily this was was on their list of ‘things to do’. At the moment only Europe is on the brink of collapse, although Obama wants to play ‘catch-up’. The non-Western nations simply want 100 billion dollars per year compensation plus costs for any unusual weather. Not too much to ask, surely!
[There may be some sarcasm in the above comments]
How much does ultra-violet radiation reaching the Earth – where the population actually lives- vary in proportion to levels of ozone in the upper polar atmosphere? Had there been a secular and injurious increase before CFC’s were banned?
Too often in these affairs some substance is demonized because of its supposed effect which, after it is no longer used, is not measured overmuch since the result must be as the model forecast.
All that happens is that the southern polar vortex reaches a peak cold/peak intensity in September and the Ozone gets pushed out to the sides of the vortex. The total amount of Ozone remains the same but it is moved out of the vortex to the side, where record levels of Ozone can then be recorded. When temperatures recover/the vortex intensity declines in November/December, the Ozone goes back to normal.
The highest Ozone readings in the world are at the edges of the vortices in September in the southern hemisphere and Feb/March in the northern hemisphere.
The northern hemisphere has record Ozone levels right now at the edge of the vortex , 560 Dobson units, basically as high as it can get .
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/sbuv2to/gif_files/sbuv16_nh_latest.gif
The southern hemisphere right now is a nice, higher than the rest of the planet, 360 Dobson units.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/sbuv2to/gif_files/sbuv19_sh_latest.gif
urederra and others
The issue of heavy gas molecules getting into the stratosphere have been covered many times on this blog. What do you suppose would have happened to Rosie and Anna’s SF6 if they had had a fan running in their aquarium? SF6 has be measured in the stratosphere, as have CFCs, they are not just modeled to be there.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/93JD02258/abstract
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/96GL00244/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
In addition, while you surmise that ozone depletion is faster in the tropics than at the poles, what do you suppose the difference in ozone formation is between the two? And you are completely ignoring the demonstrated effect of ice crystal catalysis on ozone depletion.
Look, to you and others who think you are experts on gas phase chemistry, I am a CAGW skeptic. I repeat Steve McIntyre’s advice, our arguments are only as strong as our weakest claims. Stop making weak claims.
Anthony,
“the hero syndrome some of these scientists seem to have,”
Seem to have? Surely you are joking. They may have the worst case of the syndrome in human history. OK, maybe the prosecutors for the Inquisition were slightly worse, but climate scientists are very close to the worst in history, and don’t have the excuse of a Medieval education.
One of the more amusing aspects was that a Chinese company was making an ‘allowed’ CFC, but a byproduct CFC was not. The EU paid them a hundred times what is cost to create the bad CFC to destroy it. The Chinese thought for two seconds and then started creating a LOT of the ‘bad’ CFC. Last I heard they had over 2 billion Euros from the EU! Suckers always pay, big time!
R. Shearer @ur momisugly 1:17…
You are flying your kite. The string breaks. What happens to your kite?
How do we hook those itty-bitty strings onto all those CFC’s ?
Dang! Dropped my magnifying glass again!
As a retired chemical engineer I spent a lifetime running computer models. The output from an unproven computer model is just about worthless. I think the IPCC found that out.
When the whole AGW CO2 discussion started i was most afraid that we would set about reducing greenhouse gases and that years later, when the earth did not burn up the good folks at big green would claim to have saved the world. I imagine the ‘pause’ would be very real and very significant in warmist eyes had CO2 emissions been curtailed.
Sweet Old Bob, if the wind and lift is strong enough, it doesn’t matter if the kite has a string or not. Without the string, it might not be held to the ground at all. Of course, CFCs don’t have strings to hold them to the ground. CFC-11 and CFC-12 are gases with boiling points of ( ~24C and -30C, respectively). Of course there could be stratification in an unmixed vessel subject to gravity, but a couple of others above pointed out the obvious – Brownian motion. Of course, don’t forget the wind and thermal mixing.
anticlimactic on March 8, 2014 at 3:30 pm
Yes, it’s bad within corrupt EU, but I wouldn’t say we’re ahead of USA … (In the richest country in world, how is it possible that some resident people practically can’t afford to live there …?) Some countries here in Europe/EU, despite the bad economics of the “Olive countries, did manage the last economical crise quite well. If we still would have the previous left wing government here in Sweden, we would have a completly different story in this country, just like we had the previous crise. We have a national election this year and media are trying their best for a change back to left wing deteriorating policy’s … (The effect by left wing school policy’s have reached all the way up in their political hiearchy. It’s enough for them to just open their mouths nowadays … Oh, sorry! Those are already open, filled with feets … Worst thing is that too many voters here still believes in their Münchhausen stories …)
Urederra, do you really think that the SF6 will stay in the aquarium indefinitely? Does water which has a boiling point of more than 100C greater? There are several mixing mechanisms in play that result in detectable amounts found in every corner of the room once the bottle of the SF6 is opened. It will not stay in that aquarium for long simply because of diffusion. Even helium will diffuse out of a balloon.
By the way, the “C” in CFC stands for carbon. SF6 is not a CFC, but yes it is denser than air and is good for demonstrating bouyancy principles.
Models all the way down. Bleah.
Back when this interested me, I looked up the UV index for the south pole. It’s usually 2. The highest reading I could find was 4. Directly under the hole, naked to the solar maelstrom, the best they could come up with was 4.
Check your local newspaper to see how this stacks up with midwinter North America.
Couple days ago MIT posted the discovery of a process in Earth’s magnetosphere that reinforces its shielding effect, keeping incoming solar energy at bay.
Plasma plumes help sheild Earth from damaging solar storms
Maybe, just maybe, ozone isn’t the only thing protecting the Antarctic from harmful solar rays.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fick%27s_law_of_diffusion
I don’t think CFC’s made a difference. There are far too many other trace chemicals in the Stratosphere that react with Ozone for the piddling amount of CFC’s produced by humans to matter.
Basically any huge gale or hurricane tears the surface of the sea into a froth of seething spray, and that spray gets sucked right up to the top of the troposphere and into the stratosphere by those super storms. Not only does a surprising amount of sea-salt wind up where the sea has no business being, but also a whole slew of hung-over plankton find themselves looking down at earth from miles above, muttering, “How the heck did I wind up here?”
Now, it may be politically incorrect to say this about a living entity, but the holistic oneness called a “plankton” is made of basic elements. Being sea critters, this includes Iodine. The funny thing about elements ending in “i-n-e” on your periodic table is that they refuse to be politically correct and accepting of ozone. Instead they are, sad to say, reactionary.
Plankton also includes bromine, chlorine, and fluorine. Gosh! Look at that! They also end in “i-n-e”! What an amazing coincidence!
In other words, rather than humans, the ones to blame for the “Ozone Hole” are plankton. (And I for one always thought those critters had a suspicious look about them.)
Our representatives in the United Nations are seeking ways to regulate and punish (and bribe, with large doses of powdered iron), plankton, however plankton unfortunately are represented by a gifted lawyer who is a bit of a scofflaw and has even been know to blow the highest ranking judges away. (The lawyer’s name is, “Mother Nature.”) (Of the firm Seemigh, Powers, and Weep.)
Plankton has been messing with the Ozone for a long time. When the Ozone Hole gets too big it actually reduces the population of plankton in the teeming seas around Antarctica. Likely there is evidence of reduced plankton populations in the core-samples from the sea bottom, showing that Ozone Holes existed before CFC’s were ever dreamed of.
All it would take is a good UN scientist to produce the incriminating evidence, and those smartypants plankton wouldn’t stand a chance in the UN court of law.
It is high time we show plankton who is boss around here.
R Shearer..not saying CFCS don’t mix in the atmosphere , just that the kite analogy dosen’t fly very well..{:< ))
I could reply to you but I would need more than one sentence and since you have onli read the first sentece of my post, then I am not going to waste my time with it.
Read the rest of my post, and my following post if you really want the answer.
Do we have continuous stratospheric chlorine content observations since the implementation of the Montreal Protocol? As far as I know CFCs, being compounds insoluble in water and containing chlorine, are only supposed to serve as vehicles to transport chlorine to the stratosphere which does its ozone thing there under extremely cold conditions.
Therefore I don’t really care how time series of the mixing ratio of each kind of CFC looks like at the surface. It would be much more interesting to see in situ history of chlorine itself high up in the stratosphere. Could it be the case that people were so careless that a long term monitoring program of the actual agent was not initiated along with an international agreement on some specific compounds?
Seriously.
Oh, here Pearse goes again! I chime in everytime the topic comes up and repeat that oxygen is magnetic and all the other atmospheric gases are diamagnetic, i.e. repulsed by a magnetic field. Changes is magnetic field strength and possibly events on the sun that enhance or reduce magnetic field strength. There is not only an ozone hole, but also a nitrogen, CO2 and noble gases “hole” only O2 is attracted to the poles and all others are pushed away. My earlier posts on the subject were a little short on empirical evidence. However, today I have some:
1) There is an observed CO2 hole at the poles
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82142
and: Scripps measured the same thing since 1957 only they didn’t know what they had!!
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_and_south_pole/mauna_loa_and_south_pole.html lower CO2 at the south pole
2) The piece de resistance! Oxygen is attracted to the poles. This link is a very dramatic one with oxygen blasted out into outer space by the solar wind and is captured by the earth’s magnetic field and returns to earth at the poles!! “MAGE/HENA observes the oxygen ions, expelled from the Earth’s atmosphere by the solar wind, return to the polar regions via the magnetic field.”
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002400/a002445/
I have had sympathetic remarks on the “Pearse Ozone Hole Theory” in earlier threads but mainly kindly explanations as to why I am wrong. Now if anyone has data on the noble gases distributions and nitrogen to further support my theory, I’d be pleased to get the links. Maybe I could then find time to compose an illustrated post for WUWT.
Working for one of the major European producers of CFC’s in the early 80’s there was no secret made of the fact that they supported the findings and ongoing research at the time due to the patents running out and they were keen to get on to the next technology (HCFC) as China and India were getting ready to get into this market and they feared a drop in price, which indeed happened before the Montreal protocol was fully implemented and the signatories could not use CFC 11, 12 and it’s blend any longer. Certain other chlorinated products were also banned.
Can’t say anything about any link between CFC and ODS’s but no doubt a model can be developed that pinpoints it to the accuracy as shown in the article, haven’t we seen that elsewhere.
Not involved in that kind of product any longer but from what I have been reading I got the impression that the ozone layer was improving these days and the Montreal protocol is generally regarded as a success. My impression can be wrong on that one of course.
In addition, while you surmise that ozone depletion is faster in the tropics than at the poles, what do you suppose the difference in ozone formation is between the two? And you are completely ignoring the demonstrated effect of ice crystal catalysis on ozone depletion.”
************************************************************************************************************
The above comment is correct except that the original comment suggested that the ozone depletion SEEMS LIKE IT SHOULD be faster in the tropics – even though it isn’t faster there.
The stratospheric ice crystals over the south pole in the Antarctic winter provide a heat sink during the high energy free radical reactions and this helps to prevent the reaction from going backwards once the the ozone destruction reaction has occurred. Thus the ice crystals act as though they are heterogeneous catalysts even though they are not involved directly in the chemistry of the reaction. These stratospheric ice crystals form mainly over Antartica during winter in the southern hemisphere. Such ice crystals don’t seem to form very much over other parts of the globe such as the tropics and not much over the Arctic.
First, It is not a conjecture, it is a fact that ozone decays faster as temperature rises. It simply follows the principles of chemical kinetics. http://www.lenntech.com/library/ozone/decomposition/ozone-decomposition.htm
Second, answering your question, ozone forms faster at the equator, and does not form during the winter at the poles because solar radiation is needed to form ozone. That is the old Dobson’s theory which still explains the “holes” and their seasonal variation without having to add CFCs into the equation.
Uh? The ice crystal catalysis is more a hollywood physics explanation than a demostrated effect.
First. Ozone is an unstable compound with a short half life. The decomposition reaction has, per sé, a very low activation energy. Catalysts work by reducing the activation energy, the more the activation energy is reduced, the better they work, the faster the reaction goes. In this case they cannot be very effective because the decomposition reaction has already a very low activation energy. There is not much room for improvement via catalysis. When ozone and water collide, they react. O2 and 2 OH- are formed, That is not a catalysis, it is just a reaction.
Second. There are no CFCs in the so-called ice crystal catalysis.
Third. The high altitude clouds only reach the lowest part of the stratospheric ozone layer. They do not touch the vast mayority of the ozone layer.
Fourth. Those clouds are almost non existant in the artic, where they also a “hole” is formed.
Those high altitude clouds are desperate attempt of saving a failed theory.
Yeah, probably somebody put ozone and ice crystals together (and maybe some CFCs) and they found that the ozone is destroyed a faster rate, but it is because it reacts with water, not because the ice crystals catalyses (reduces the activation energy of) any reaction.