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
Rich Carman says:
March 8, 2014 at 5:26 pm
“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 Antar[c]tica 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.”
= = = = = = = = = = =
from Bill Illis:
“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.”
If you look at the maps you will see that Bill is correct, Rich.
So how exactly do those stratospheric ice crystals + CFCs explain the recurring pattern of distribution?
What explains the increased concentration of ozone that surrounds the region of depletion?
They have no way of comparing ozone reduction to past times. Volcanoes may influence it, or again it is something from outer space. The position of the sun in different countries too. Land of the midnight sun, for example. Anyway ozone is a poisonous gas, that is what you smell when there is a thunderstorm and lightening strikes.
Sweet Old Bob, I sarcastically pointed out that there are still people who think that something heavier than air cannot rise (fly). It wasn’t an analogy really, or at least not a good one.
Urederra, I know enough about SF6. It’s a very dense gas, and very unreactive, as well as having good dielectric properties. It is not a CFC. But despite the fact that it is heavier than air, it reaches high altitude and remote locations, such as Niwot Ridge in Colorado. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/hats/insitu/cats/conc/nwrsf6.html
You say that ozone reacts with water. What are the products of this reaction?
If there is no records to which recent readings can be compared, you can’t really prove your hypothesis.
george e. conant says:
March 8, 2014 at 10:25 am
cfc’s are too heavy and can not rise up, they sink rapidly, thump.
Always wondered why CFCs got that high to destroy ozone, but couldn’t seem to accomplish the same thing at ground level.
“This also increased the price of the inhalers from $5 to $50, effectively eliminating it for thousands, if not millions of poor asthma sufferers.”
Asthma inhalers are around the AUD10 here mark and have been for years. If anything, their price hasn’t kept up with inflation, unlike say, petrol. It’s a bit disturbing to see ozone depletion (a proven effect) linked with AGW “theory”, as a scam. While a long-term AGW doubter, I’m happy to believe that ozone depletion was real, they’re not linked directly and the ozone layer is recovering since CFCs were banned (and there are effective substitutes- may car a/c works just as well, if not better, than old cars with CFCS). As a skin cancer sufferer, I have every reason to fear UV radiation.
His arrogance is really astonishing. Switching from CFCs to HFCs didn’t save anyone’s lives. Nobody dies from moving a couple of miles closer to the equator.
The incidences of skin cancer and melenomas are greater than in UK. Do yer reckon its because people in Australia not being brown, go out in the midday sun and laze on our beautiful beaches. The original indigenous Aborigines did not suffer from skin cancer. And those up in Northern Australia arewere darker skinned than the ones down south. Just because the holes are there, stopping UV from hitting the planets surface, the angle of the sun in Australia is straight overhead at 12 noon, and the angle of the sun is different too in England and parts of North America. When any scientifically based thesis is prepared, especially if there is a grant being paid for its conclusion, one has to take in all the variables that can affect the conclusion.
Polar bears don’t get skin cancer, you nut, they wear clothes and sun screen. LOL
Actually, ozone depletion affects higher latitudes. Australians have the highest rates of skin cancer in the world. Tasmania in summer has the highest UV indices- the saving grace there is the cool climate leads to covering up more. There are few populated zones at high latitudes in the southern hemisphere, where ozone depletion is the worst. Even Tasmania is “high latitude” only relative to the mainland, not to populated areas in the Northern Hemisphere. The sun is overhead at noon in Australia? For some places, at limited times of the year, maybe. I live in the subtropics- it’s hot so I wear shorts/shirt, leaving much exposed, so that gets covered in icky sun cream. The danger times are 1000-1500, but one can still be burnt at 0900 given exposure and lack of protection (hat, sunglasses, sunscreen).
How do you know polar bears don’t get skin cancer? Cats and dogs in Australia are very prone to them, their lives are artificially prolonged by not having to hunt for food or deal with predators.
R. Shearer says:
March 8, 2014 at 1:17 pm
Apparently a few people think it would be impossible for kites to fly as they are heavier than air.
@ur momisugly R. Shearer
I guess all molecules are held up by madly running children with strings attached to said molecules.?
“Actually, we saved your lives.”
I am stunned. Where does the government-funded hubris ever end?
John M:
RIGHT ON. I am also a GAGW skeptic. The denial that CFC has a chemical impact on ozone levels is worrisome.
What if the ozone holes don’t change with changes in atmospheric CFCs?
I have some difficulty accepting we made enough CFCs in terms of sheer
tonnage to affect something as large as the atmosphere, for as long. I keep
wondering if it was just coincidence.
What if it is really high-energy cosmic rays? The muons Svensmark has linked to
low tropospheric cloud formation aren’t fussy about where they go. If it’s not muons
could it be something else? What else? Has cosmic radiation been completely ruled out?
Considering the polar holes are repairing, it seems reasonable that CFCs did have some effect. CFCs supply chlorine to the stratosphere (no matter that they’re “heavy” molecules, they still get there) and their half-life is such (the time it takes them to be completely broken down) is measured in thousands of years, so a small amount goes a long way. Considering the number of old fridges dumped, and the manner of “recharging” auto a/c (dumping the old gas, in with new stuff) there was plenty of it going into the atmosphere. Not like CO2 volumes of course, but each molecule of CFC could do a lot of dirty work.
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
Do you have some figures of the evolution of the UV influx over the years in Diekirch?
Yes Ferdinand: please look here for the trends in (biologically effective) UVB, UVA and total solar irradiance, as well of those of ground ozone and TOC in Diekirch, Luxembourg (lat. ~50°N).
http://meteo.lcd.lu/data/trends/meteolcd_trends.html
(trends calculated more than a decade, often 16 years)
Claim: What would have happened to the ozone layer if chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) had not been regulated?What would have happened if global warming alarmists had not been born?
No green taxes – so the poor could afford to eat and warm their home.
No windmills – paid for by poor people.
No biofuel additives – so rice and other commodity food would be more affordable by the poor.
No mass installations of PV panels – paid for by taxes on the poor.
No inefficient electric cars – less pollution from battery manufacturer plants.
No overnight loss of traditional industries such as coal.
No false targeting of science – thousands of scientists would work on worthwhile projects.
No corruption of a generation of scientists – who now believe the ‘story’ is the most important thing.
What would not change if we had no alarmists?
We would still have extremely stupid politicians (all countries)
We would still have an uncritical media (all countries)
Our education systems would still be degenerating.
Our power grid systems would still be fragile and decaying.
Oh for a world where engineers get voted into positions of responsibility!
“New satellite ozone data and other atmospheric studies based on actual measurements confirm that the ozone layer is not a homogeneous, flat and that atmospheric dynamics, not chemistry, is the driving factor that determines the thickness of the ozone layer. The scientific research reported here strips any shred of credibility from the claims of the ozone depletion theorists leaving the Montreal Protocol backed only by the Malthusian ideotogy of its founders.
The dramatic new satellite ozone data, featured on the cover, are from the Crista-Spas ensemble of instruments, designed by scientists at the University of Wuppertal in Germany, which was deployed by the Space Shuttle in November 1994. The Crista team announced its first results at a press conference in Bonn on Nov. 6, 1995, but the results of the mission were barely covered in the European press, and not covered at all in the United States.
Crista-Spas is a group of instruments (Crista), deployed on a space platform (Spas), that measures atmospheric gases in such detail that it can create three-dimensional images of the distribution of the gases in the stratosphere (see Crista-Spas Project). As the German scientists told the press, these 3-D images show that the models behind the ozone depletion scare are completely, and axiomatically, wrong. In the words of Germany’s Die Welt newspaper Nov. 7, the evidence presented at this press conference means that “all ozone computer models produced so far have, in effect, turned into waste paper. [Makulatur].””
Mike T says:
Actually, ozone depletion affects higher latitudes. Australians have the highest rates of skin cancer in the world. Tasmania in summer has the highest UV indices- the saving grace there is the cool climate leads to covering up more. There are few populated zones at high latitudes in the southern hemisphere, where ozone depletion is the worst
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Look at the distribution map and explain how the annual cyclical phenomena can affect Australians negatively. (Hint: it can’t.)
As has been pointed out several times, the highest concentrations of ozone appear around the so called “hole”. In September in Australia, the sun streams through an ozone layer that has either normal or elevated concentrations. See for yourself:
http://www.gse-promote.org/gallery/o3hole/ozonehole_1995_2004_09.jpg
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/robert-johnson-new-perspectives-for.html
After listening to this interview you also will come to the conclusion that ‘Economists” who sold out to Political systems and big Idealists are no different from our ‘beloved’ Climate Scientists. Both use ‘models’ that are setup to give a pre-determined result.
regards
what always got me..apart from the dupont and the fact ENRON had a LOT to do with working out the CFC trading scams ..and their methods I suspect are still used for the Co2 scam..
was the not insignificant fact that so many MILLIONS of cars aircon home fridge freezers etc etc as well as useful vital firefighting units all got trashed!
and most of that cfc etc all got sent to the atmosphere anyway!
and then he mining production and new gas etc for all the replacer units.
NOT a SMALL enviro cost was it??
same crap now with millions of TVs radios etc being dumped due to forced Digital broadcasting,
and then the msoft biz with billions pf pcs being trashed due to the new programs sysems requirements
and people mindlessly doing it, instead of losing msoft and going to linux etc.
I know that, The only reason I mentioned CF6 is to counterargument the kite example.
I also said, in my first, second and third posts. that CFCs are heavy gases, like SF6, and therefore they are not well mixed. That does NOT mean that they do NOT mix at all, It means that the concentration of those gases in the atmosphere depends on altitude and temperature.
I even produced, in my second post, a graph from nasa proving that the concentration at the equator is higher than at the poles. Here it is: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a000800/a000829/a000829.mp4
If you bother to click on the link, you will see that the concentration of CFC12 at 30 Km of alititude is 0.3 ppbv at the equator but only 0.05 ppbv at 70 degrees of latitude. (btw, ppbv means parts per billion)
And, for the third time, I want to point out that since there are more CFC molecules at the equator, the ozone destruction rate should be higher at the equator. More CFC molecules mean more more collision with O3 molecules, and more collisions mean more destruction rate.
Also higher temperatures at the equator mean that the molecules travel at faster speed, which means more collision between molecules and also more energetic collision, which should render faster reaction speeds (higher ozone deplection) That is basic chemical kinetics.
But that is not happening, meaning that CFCs do no have an effect on ozone deplection.
Again, CFC concentration does not correlate with ozone deplection. CFC concentrations is high in the equator and low at the poles, but ozone concentration is higher at the equator than at the poles. It is the opposite as you would expect if CFCs destroys ozone.
As I said in my previous post. O3 + H2O renders O2 + 2 OH (radicals)
(Then the OH radicals also cause a lot of damage on organic molecules, that is why ozone is used as water disinfectant)
It is also in the link I provided in my previous post, If you bother to look.
“Mike T says: March 8, 2014 at 7:45 pm
It’s a bit disturbing to see ozone depletion (a proven effect) linked with AGW “theory”, as a scam. While a long-term AGW doubter, I’m happy to believe that ozone depletion was real, they’re not linked directly and the ozone layer is recovering since CFCs were banned (and there are effective substitutes- may car a/c works just as well, if not better, than old cars with CFCS). As a skin cancer sufferer, I have every reason to fear UV radiation.”
The discussion seems to be drifting a bit off the topic, but find Mike T’s concern valid from sociopolitical perspective meriting further consideration:
To protect the climate CFCs are now strictly restricted – even banning for laboratory and analytical use http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ozone/ods/index_en.htm, including controlling quality of medicines and identifying falsifications. This endangers the health of all patients – a high cost and in return for what exactly?
In my opinion this offers one of the clearest examples where misanthropocentrism slaps human rights straight on. Being one of the reasons why I’m not so happy to believe in AODS-fears, but question (especially due to, in my view, rather unscientific generalization of laboratory experiments e.g. to a whole family of substances and then up-scaling them to earth systems without proof).
But, don’t take me wrong. I understand your and Camburn’s concerns and think recycling CFCs is far more sensible than releasing them into the atmosphere. What’s the harm listening to those asking questions Anthony Watts, Dennis Hand, Rich Carman, Gary Pearse, urederra and many others? There is no obligation to agree with all the proposed answers.
Juvenile megalomania.
Urederra
Thanks for the review. After more than 40 years as a chemist, it’s never too late for me to review my fundamentals.
So if the activation energy is so low that a catalyst can’t make a difference, why does temperature make a difference? After all, reaction rate is proportional to e^(-Ea/RT). The only reason temperature has an impact is becasue Ea is non-zero. If Ea large enough for T to have an impact, it’s large enough for a catalyst to have an impact.
Indeed catalytoc effects can be measured even in solution
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01919510208901614
Catlalytic effects are even more important in the low concentrations encountered in the stratosphere.
And I’m glad we agree that ozone formation and destruction are both occurring in the tropics and at the poles. It’s not the reaction rate of a single reaction that’s important, it’s the balance of the two. Just because Dobson’s theory is old doesn’t mean the two reactions can’t be impacted differently by CFCs and catalytic reactions in the two regions.
Ozone depletion was the trial balloon for the CAGW Con.
The UN first Earth Summit was in 1972 where Maurice Strong rounded up the eco-nuts, paid their way to the confrence and gave them their marching orders. (It included Global warming even back then BEFORE the continued cold spell of the 1970s)
The large foundations then funded them and turned them into the Astro-turf movements we have today.
Funders of GREENPEACE (click Related Foundations)
A few from that very long list:
Energy Foundation – came from the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
Liberty Hill Foundation – founded in 1976 by Larry Janss, Anne Mendel, Win McCormack and Sarah Pillsbury. The foundation’s stated purpose involves social engineering and leveling “class inequality.”
Turner Foundation
Fidelity (Investments) Charitable Gift Fund
Harold K. Hochschild (CEO American Metal Company) Foundation
John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
John Merck (Merck Pharmaceuticals) Fund
Joyce Foundation – Obama as there Rep. helped set-up the Chicago Carbon exchange for Maurice Strong and Al Gore.
New York Times Company Foundation
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Rockefeller Family Fund
Rockefeller Foundation
Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation – daughter of former Standard Oil president William Rockefeller.
Charles Schwab Corporation Foundation
J. P. Morgan Charitable Trust
Levi Strauss Foundation – Several other related foundations from various family members.
Max & Victoria Dreyfus Foundation
Merrill Lynch & Co. Foundation
GEICO Philanthropic Foundation
Pfizer Foundation
Did anyone actually measure the concentration of CFCs at that hight in the stratosphere?
If so, reference please.
The “ends justify the means” mentality is strong with regard to Climate Change. Having talked to many coworkers about why they don’t seem interested in learning more about the “settled science”, many of the greener types simply say that they believe in green and sustainability (and see fossil fuels and their companies as evil and greedy) and it wouldn’t change their support of the remediation steps. In a sense, they are fine with using Climate Change as a Trojan Horse to get their actions implemented. The strong activists realize this overtly, but there are many who don’t realize that this is their position – they have backed into it subconsciously. It is a sad, frankly.