Mysterious new man-made gases pose threat to ozone layer…

Image Credits: NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center

By WUWT Regular “Just The Facts”

On the heels of Andrew Dessler’s Ozone Hole tweet, we have from the BBC:

“Researchers from the University of East Anglia have discovered evidence of four new gases that can destroy ozone and are getting into the atmosphere from as yet unidentified sources.”

“Scientists have identified four new man-made gases that are contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer.

Two of the gases are accumulating at a rate that is causing concern among researchers.”

“Other scientists acknowledged that while the current concentrations of these gases are small and they don’t present an immediate concern, work would have to be done to identify their origin.

“This paper highlights that ozone depletion is not yet yesterday’s story,” said Prof Piers Forster, from the University of Leeds.

“The concentrations found in this study are tiny. Nevertheless, this paper reminds us we need to be vigilant and continually monitor the atmosphere for even small amounts of these gases creeping up, either through accidental or unplanned emissions.

“Of the four species identified, CFC-113a seems the most worrying as there is a very small but growing emission source somewhere, maybe from agricultural insecticides. We should find it and take it out of production.”

Read More

The paper “Newly detected ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere” Laube et al., paywalled, can be found here:

“Ozone-depleting substances emitted through human activities cause large-scale damage to the stratospheric ozone layer, and influence global climate. Consequently, the production of many of these substances has been phased out; prominent examples are the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and their intermediate replacements, the hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). So far, seven types of CFC and six types of HCFC have been shown to contribute to stratospheric ozone destruction1, 2. Here, we report the detection and quantification of a further three CFCs and one HCFC.”

“Our observations on air samples collected in remote regions of the atmosphere show the presence of four previously undetected ozone-depleting substances (ODSs). We have identified and quantified CFC-112 (CFCl2CFCl2), CFC-112a (CF2ClCCl3), CFC-113a (CF3CCl3) and HCFC-133a (CF3CH2Cl) in the atmosphere (Fig. 1). We have reconstructed their past abundances from air extracted from deep polar firn, which can provide a natural archive of atmospheric composition up to about a century back in time5. Our firn air measurements suggest that all four newly reported compounds are anthropogenic (see also Supplementary Information), with insignificant atmospheric abundances before the 1960s.”

For reference, the images the head of this article show the current Northern “Ozone Hole” within the Northern Polar Vortex, at 10 hPa/mb – Approximately 31,000 meters (101,700 feet). Draw your own conclusions…

0 0 vote
Article Rating
167 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
sadbutmadlad
March 9, 2014 3:33 pm

The Ozone-CFC Debacle: Hasty Action, Shaky Science – http://heartland.org/policy-documents/ozone-cfc-debacle-hasty-action-shaky-science

Alvin
March 9, 2014 3:35 pm

Sounds like another strawman argument.

Richdo
March 9, 2014 3:36 pm

“Shaka, when the walls fell”.

justsomeguy31167
March 9, 2014 3:40 pm

I guess when you know the global warming meme is dying, it is time to start a new paranoia fest for the greenies.

March 9, 2014 3:42 pm

“Other scientists acknowledged that while the current concentrations of these gases are small and they don’t present an immediate concern, work would have to be done to identify their origin.”
In other words: “We’re for sale. Give us lots of money and we’ll point the finger at some aspect of civilization and ramp up the threat. Act now and we’ll throw in a hockey stick for free.”

Chris @NJSnowFan
March 9, 2014 3:43 pm

They say could be from agricultural insecticides but what about resins from carbon fiber resins from wind turbine blades and solar panel manufacturing new types of Industry with new chemicals

March 9, 2014 3:44 pm

Obviously CO2 is no longer the gravy train it once was. Time to rustle up a new bogeyman (or six.)

Chris @NJSnowFan
March 9, 2014 3:45 pm

There are many types of men chemicals also from pharmaceutical companies

Sean Peake
March 9, 2014 3:47 pm

I went looking for the underlying BS and found it in the last line: agricultural insecticides.

Joe Public
March 9, 2014 3:50 pm

“Two of the gases are accumulating at a rate that is causing concern among researchers.”
Could that rate be ‘insignificant’, as in:- insufficient to justify numerous research grants?

March 9, 2014 3:50 pm

Read “UEA” and stopped reading. How many think that credible science is done there? Perhaps there is, but if it says “UEA” on anything, I hesitate to read it except for entertainment purposes. Even scanning it, the BS meter works overtime. I wonder if they realize how much damage they have done to their reputation?

Latitude
March 9, 2014 3:50 pm

memo to staff: People aren’t buying the whole CO2 thing any more…..we need to come up with at least four more dangerous man-made gasses

nigelf
March 9, 2014 3:54 pm

Draw your own conclusions…
I have, and it’s not very flattering to those pushing this (yet another) scam.
I’m catastrophied out and don’t believe one iota of what they claim and they only have themselves to blame.

johanna
March 9, 2014 3:55 pm

Somehow, I don’t think that this dog is gonna hunt. Back to the drawing-board, grant junkies!

Severian
March 9, 2014 3:56 pm

In other words, our hysterical bleatings and banning of Freon didn’t stop people from being able to have air conditioning, the plebes need to suffer for Mother Gaia, they were too darned smart and found a way to do it without old Freon. We’ll fix their wagon, and their little dog too!

Gary Pearse
March 9, 2014 3:56 pm

““Researchers from the University of East Anglia have discovered evidence of four new gases that can destroy ozone and are getting into the atmosphere”.
Whack-a-moley science. NASA reports ozone hole is not going away a month ago and UEA comes out with a paper discovering “new” substances – suspiciously all Chlorfluorocarbons. Hmm … this is a bit over the top. The rapid response team is good!
With the complex nature of the chemistry involving UV light turning loose individual Cl atoms, how do these guys know that they aren’t products of the reaction with the old CFC. What if they are natural. Seawater contains some fluorine (<1ppm) and chlorine is known to be abundant enough from salt spray from the sea to put HCl adrift. Add the "newly discovered" organic chemical haze from forests to the mix….
I think O-hole alarmists have been getting the jitters recently with, despite 35yrs of UV eating up CFCs the O-hole just won't go away and CFCs really should have been significantly reduced by now to show some progress. Okay, consensadores, we got to find more bad, secret ozone destroyers. When the hockey stick was broken, new hockey stick papers popped out like pop corn; when we had 1/6th of a century of no warming, we started getting papers on hot spots whizzing around the world to fast to keep track of and the devious heat also started heading for the ocean deeps. Oh and Dessler, it appears you didn't save our lives after all! Were still going to be doomed.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/08/claim-what-would-have-happened-to-the-ozone-layer-if-chlorofluorocarbons-cfcs-had-not-been-regulated/

jorgekafkazar
March 9, 2014 4:00 pm

drivel

Robert of Ottawa
March 9, 2014 4:02 pm

CFC-113a seems the most worrying as there is a very small but growing emission source somewhere, maybe from agricultural insecticides
And THERE is the target of this BS.
The O-hole has remained pretty much the same for all the years of observation; I’d say it’s a natural phenomenon due to, oh say, magnetic fields, particle streams and suchlike.

March 9, 2014 4:12 pm

lets see: ban Agricultural pesticides, cause global famine, blame climate skeptics.

Bill H
March 9, 2014 4:13 pm

Target mans ability to safely store food.. Create Food.. Just more of the same from these slugs.

March 9, 2014 4:15 pm

similar to: ban nuclear energy, cause global warming, blame fossil fuel industry

John
March 9, 2014 4:16 pm

“The researchers are concerned”. How the liberal media loves the University of East Angliaphile.
My guess the chemicals are emitted from the manufacture of compact fluorescent light bulbs.

H.R.
March 9, 2014 4:16 pm

I’m pretty sure that research grants are causing the ozone hole. Stop funding ozone hole research and you’ll never hear another peep about that pesky ozone hole.

davidmhoffer
March 9, 2014 4:18 pm

“Of the four species identified, CFC-113a seems the most worrying as there is a very small but growing emission source somewhere,
Yeah… like maybe someone somewhere still makes the stuff by the barrel? Nah, couldn’t be. If that existed, it would be run by mad scientists in a secret lab with security guards and and anyone who found out about it would be shot and dropped in the ocean with cement boots to keep the info out of the public. You’d never be able to just google it and buy it by the barrel right off the internet, that would never happen….
http://sporlan.en.alibaba.com/product/520950722-50102950/CFC_113A_Refrigerant_Gas_Sale.html

March 9, 2014 4:24 pm

Has anybody ever measured the amount of CFCs or chlorine actually in the “ozone hole” over time?

Louis Hooffstetter
March 9, 2014 4:24 pm

This may be ground breaking research and the authors may be absolutely correct. But after reading Phil Jones emails, I simply cannot take anything that comes from the University of East Anglia seriously.

Severian
March 9, 2014 4:27 pm

“Has anybody ever measured the amount of CFCs or chlorine actually in the “ozone hole” over time?”
Surely you jest? There’s a computer model behind every tree!

R. Shearer
March 9, 2014 4:28 pm

Supplemental information at least is not behind a pay wall. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ngeo2109-s1.pdf

sabretruthtiger
March 9, 2014 4:28 pm

…and if you remove agricultural insecticides farmers will have no choice but to buy Monsanto’s GMO crops. Then there’s reduced crop yields, starvation… the usual Globalist Order out of chaos tactics toward a world control grid.

March 9, 2014 4:34 pm

“Ozone-depleting substances emitted through human activities cause large-scale damage to the stratospheric ozone layer, and influence global climate”
Um, um, well yeah maybe, but since ozone is a greenhouse gas the influence should be one of lowering temperatures which if alarmists are right should be a good thing.

rogerknights
March 9, 2014 4:34 pm

Too much Guacamole?

James the Elder
March 9, 2014 4:39 pm

We always say: “You just can’t make this $hit up.” They, however, seemed to have found a way.

redc1c4
March 9, 2014 4:46 pm

“We should find it and take it out of production.”
that tells you everything you need to know: Luddites on the march again!

philincalifornia
March 9, 2014 4:52 pm

Do I have to read it ?? The words “East” and “Anglia” should be a clue as to why not, but I probably will – maybe when I need an ironic laugh.

Damian
March 9, 2014 4:58 pm

It is further believed that though the concentrations of these gasses are small the govt grant potential is rather large. Woo woo the gravy train is leaving the station.

March 9, 2014 4:59 pm

They are not out to save the planet but to destroy mankind.

Bill Illis
March 9, 2014 5:01 pm

The only threat to the Ozone layer is stratospheric volcano eruptions. Or at least that is what the actual data says. This seems to be an issue that climate science/gravy train ignores as much as possible.

Konrad
March 9, 2014 5:03 pm

Researchers from the University of East Anglia declare –
“Good news everybody! We’ve discovered fresh supplies of Doooom!”
But then they would, wouldn’t they? No-one is buying their old stock and it’s seriously past its use-by date.

AllanJ
March 9, 2014 5:05 pm

Science is easy when you start with two simple postulates:
Humans bad.
Nature good.

bushbunny
March 9, 2014 5:06 pm

Personally I don’t like any kind of insecticides, but it is hard to live without them. But if they were that dangerous, they would affect humans and animals too. We now take great care where we spray them, and there are laws governing this. Such as wind drift, aerial spraying etc. And protective clothes and masks. These jokers are really don’t meet the mustard.

bushbunny
March 9, 2014 5:13 pm

Allan that is their philosophy and unfortunately in someways we have damaged the landscape, but nature seems to rebound well, one cliches used by archaeology and palaeoanthropologists is
“Humans propose but nature deposes” No rain, crops and people die. Sudden volcanic eruptions can cool the planet and cause a nuclear winter. And large density cities cause their own UHI and pollution. etc, etc., etc. And an other glacial period will greatly harm the Northern Hemisphere, don’t you think they already know this? That’s why they are ignoring the medieval
mini ice age.

Editor
March 9, 2014 5:16 pm

When they have exhausted (excuse the pun!) the hazards to the planet of man-made gases, there are two other states of matter (man-made) that no doubt will lead to Armageddon!
Does a degree from the University of East Anglia have the initials BAtdwSc (Bugger All to do with Science) ?

ldd
March 9, 2014 5:18 pm

Why the heck would anyone listen to these ahem, “experts” about anything at this point?
Eye-roll worthy, is all.

Luke Warmist
March 9, 2014 5:22 pm

“……with insignificant atmospheric abundances before the 1960s.”
  Ummm, somebody help this dumb engineer out. So they occur naturally, but ‘not in abundance’?

March 9, 2014 5:24 pm

Analytical instruments are becoming so sensitive that you find practically everything anywhere you want. If I want to find cancer in your toothpaste or explosives in your bubble gum, I will. We can expect ever more of these scare stories in the future.

March 9, 2014 6:25 pm

What leads these folks to claim these agents “could be from agricultural insecticides.”? That’s a bizarre thing to claim without explanation. To throw in my own out-of-left-field possible origin : could solar panels be emitting such agents? After all, agricultural insecticides have been around for a very long time, solar panels not very long.

Karl
March 9, 2014 6:25 pm

Fluorinated Drinking Water (Fluorine) and Water Treatment (Chlorine and carbon and bacteria)?? (remember fluorine started to be added post WWII but really ramped up in the 1960’s)
Oh nooes!!!
Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone?
That’s my hypothesis, where is my grant for the research and to develop an alternative??????
Jut give me money, money, that’s what I want.

Peter Laux
March 9, 2014 6:36 pm

Zombie Science strikes again.
So lets get this right, CFC’s don’t “destroy the ozone” above Industrial Centres where they are released but migrate too & have an annual jamboree and convention every year at the same time in Antarctica.
Extraordinary really when hardly any atmospheric water vapor from other latitudes can penetrate the Circumpolar winds surrounding Antarctica, thus making it the driest continent on earth.
So ozone is not in a layer but is formed in the Ionosphere as solar UV hits O2 – this “hole” forms during the Antarctic winter where no UV has been wrecking O2 to form Ozone – and we blame a gas as the ‘guilty party’ ………. Detective Colombo would still be asking questions !

john robertson
March 9, 2014 6:37 pm

Now to pull some gaseous names out of my..
The odour of desperation in 4 flavours.
Wet climate scientist, more foul than we dog.
Frightened parasite, oh my god, I’m going to have to get a job.
Musty academia, long past its best.
Stale sponge, the grants are over.
Yes terrible gases are building up in the atmosphere of East Anglia, better nuke it , before they spread.
Thats the precautionary principle ain’t it?

SIGINT EX
March 9, 2014 6:37 pm

Ah ! The busy Boffins of the Anglican Church speak. Hallowed be thy name.
A reference for the virus of Anglicanism ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglicanism
Yes. What a conundrum. The “ozone hole” north and south since 1989 comes and goes, comes and goes, seemingly irrespective of the prescriptions of the Boffins of the Anglican Church.
How dreadful.
The Boffins since 1987 must be in a terrible fixation.
Ah Ha !
The “Keeling Curve” keeps ever rising. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve
Yet Global Temperatures on average are, flat.
Robin, “Batman, could it be that the Earth’s atmosphere in regards to CO2 concentration, assuming the measurement of CO2 concentration is legitimate, is insensitive to CO2 concentration ?
Batman, “If we assume the CO2 concentrations are legitimate then both the Montreal Protocol and the assumptions of IPCC Anthropogenic Global Warming are false.”
[Radio Transmissions disrupted by USA thermonuclear detonations in the Thermosphere above Crimea]
Batman, “Ditto. Now you see the evil we are up against.”

Katherine
March 9, 2014 6:41 pm

“Researchers from the University of East Anglia have discovered evidence of four new gases that can destroy ozone and are getting into the atmosphere from as yet unidentified sources.
“Scientists have identified four new man-made gases that are contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer.
Two of the gases are accumulating at a rate that is causing concern among researchers.””

If the sources are unidentified, how can they say the gases are man-made? How do they know there isn’t a natural source for the gases? After all, there are natural sources for CFCs; for example, volcanic processes, bacteria, fungi, plants, lichen, insects, and marine animals.

JohnB
March 9, 2014 6:43 pm

Alumni from the other course at East Anglia perhaps?

Mike Tremblay
March 9, 2014 6:47 pm

I hate to break it to these researchers, but these are not ‘new’ gases. All were identified in the Montreal Protocol as ODS (Ozone depleting substances) back in 1989, and their production, or use in production of other than non-ODS materials was banned, or due to be phased out completely by 2030 – the phase out of production is currently at 98%. The hyperbole that these are ‘new’ gases and increased threats to the ozone layer has no place in responsible scientific research when simply looking at the ODS listing at the EPA’s website shows that they are already considered.

Chuck Nolan
March 9, 2014 6:49 pm

A.D. Everard says:
March 9, 2014 at 3:42 pm
In other words: “We’re for sale. Give us lots of money and we’ll point the finger at some aspect of civilization and ramp up the threat. Act now and we’ll throw in a hockey stick for free.”
—————————————————
No, no, no, no, no A.D.
Not in other words.
Those are the words.
And I wouldn’t be surprised to learn they knew it all along.
Except, I believe I’ve read somewhere they even offer a 100% money back (you wish) guarantee the data will display a hockey stick with extensive torturing.
cn

Gunga Din
March 9, 2014 7:00 pm

Robert of Ottawa says:
March 9, 2014 at 4:02 pm
CFC-113a seems the most worrying as there is a very small but growing emission source somewhere, maybe from agricultural insecticides
And THERE is the target of this BS.
The O-hole has remained pretty much the same for all the years of observation; I’d say it’s a natural phenomenon due to, oh say, magnetic fields, particle streams and suchlike.

=====================================================================
And whichever pole is pointed away from the Sun as winter and summer continue.

Paul Coppin
March 9, 2014 7:01 pm

I guess somebody has to say it: It’s not clear these guys know an o-hole from an a-hole…

Mike Tremblay
March 9, 2014 7:02 pm

Katherine says:
March 9, 2014 at 6:41 pm
If the sources are unidentified, how can they say the gases are man-made? How do they know there isn’t a natural source for the gases? After all, there are natural sources for CFCs; for example, volcanic processes, bacteria, fungi, plants, lichen, insects, and marine animals.
———————————————————————————————————————-
These people refuse to acknowledge that most ODS have a natural source. The natural concentrations of ODS cannot possibly be known since man-made ODS production began in the 1930s and there is no ODS data prior to that which was gathered during the International Geophysical Year of 1959. They fail to recognize that they have no idea of what the concentration of ODS in the stratosphere was prior to about 1978 when they began regular sampling for ODS – I suspect that because they call these ‘new’, these specific gases weren’t even looked for in previous sampling and thus they have no idea what their concentrations were prior to their current research. They are probably basing previous unknown concentrations on a model developed without sufficient data as well since it is nearly impossible to calculate the background concentrations of ODS from natural sources.

bushbunny
March 9, 2014 7:13 pm

Mike I agree with your comment. As far as the Antarctic ozone hole it is above the ring of fire and there are active volcanoes in the Antarctic region. Anyone know how we can plug up volcanoes,
LOL

otsar
March 9, 2014 7:15 pm

R113a , CAS No 75. may be purchased from Zejiang China. It may be purchased in 250Kg ISO tanks. It is used as a precursor for other useful molecules such as R134a. I am not surprised that they claim not to know the major source. It can be easily found on the web. They probably are afraid to mention it.

March 9, 2014 7:22 pm

Insanity at it’s finest. A tiny amount , but it may get worse. Watch out for the kitchen sink, they must be about ready to throw that in, also.

Konrad
March 9, 2014 7:26 pm

Bill Illis says:
March 9, 2014 at 5:01 pm
———————————
If any surface gases were to have an effect on ozone levels, then volcanic bromine and chlorine would clearly outweigh any human effort.
However it should be noted that ozone being thin to non-existent over the poles was predicted from sounding rocket data before satellites.
The reason for natural ozone holes is simple physics. Solar UV produces atomic oxygen (O) by splitting diatomic oxygen (O2) molecules. If there is sufficient atmospheric density where this occurs atomic oxygen can combine with O2 to produce ozone (O3). The Ozone produced is highly reactive and can be destroyed even by a collision with an O2 molecule. This means there is a limited altitude at which ozone will exist and its production and destruction is a continuous and rapid process.
Closer to the poles, the angle of incidence of UV radiation, relative to perpendicular to the atmosphere, increases. This means that UV must pass through more low density gas at higher altitude. The UV here is being absorbed before it reaches a level where atomic oxygen produced has much chance of collision with O2 and recombination into O3. The holes in the ozone layer are right where they are supposed to be.
The UN has been seriously compromised by the collapse of the global warming inanity. The revival of the Ozone hole scare seems an attempt to allow the IPCC to be thrown under the bus while saving the WMO and UNEP. This however is unlikely to work in the age of the Internet. The propaganda pushed in the original scare blamed humans for the hole. New propaganda that “there should be a hole but humans are making it worse” cannot be built on this foundation.

Luke Warmist
March 9, 2014 7:28 pm

…I think the source is Prius electrical fumes. Greenie pollution.

March 9, 2014 7:46 pm

justthefactswuwt says:
March 9, 2014 at 7:15 pm
“What is particularly interesting is that there is an “Ozone Hole”, within an “Ozone Hole”, within another “Ozone Hole”…”
Just showing that the homogeneous layer model of the ozone is wrong. Its a plasma layer… The polar vortex probably has something to do with its yearly shape and size… CRISTA shows the ozone layer is built like a plasma layer between different density plasma’s surrounding a solid object.
CRISTA and Related Papers
“CRISTA ( CRyogenic Infrared Spectrometers and Telescopes for the Atmosphere) is
a limb-scanning satellite experiment, designed and developed by the University of Wuppertal to measure infrared emissions of the earth’s atmosphere.
Equipped with three telescopes and four spectrometers and cooled with liquid helium, CRISTA acquires global 3D-maps of temperature and atmospheric trace gases with very high horizontal and vertical resolution. The design enables the observation of small scale dynamical structures in the 10-150 km altitude region.”
http://crista.uni-wuppertal.de/crista/publications.html

philincalifornia
March 9, 2014 7:48 pm

Mike Tremblay says:
March 9, 2014 at 6:47 pm
I hate to break it to these researchers, but these are not ‘new’ gases. All were identified in the Montreal Protocol as ODS (Ozone depleting substances) back in 1989, and their production, or use in production of other than non-ODS materials was banned, or due to be phased out completely by 2030 – the phase out of production is currently at 98%. The hyperbole that these are ‘new’ gases and increased threats to the ozone layer has no place in responsible scientific research when simply looking at the ODS listing at the EPA’s website shows that they are already considered.
——————–
Yep, right here:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/ods/classtwo.html

March 9, 2014 8:07 pm

97% sure my bs meter is pegged.

March 9, 2014 8:11 pm

Possible source of these vapors, Wattsupwiththat blog due to the posting of Walter K.

March 9, 2014 8:17 pm

Ah. Sounds suspiciously like the climate units funding must be up for review.

Santa Baby
March 9, 2014 8:40 pm

It’s about the 2014 state of fear awards? The competition is hard and lots of state funded are competing?

hunter
March 9, 2014 8:43 pm

Let us not forget that eventually the boy who cried wolf was crying about a real wolf.
CO2 obsession can cut both ways.
It can make skeptics reflexively dismissive of real threats, simply because of the source of the warning.
Let’s keep ourselves on the right side of things and learn more so we can ask informed questions.

A Crooks of Adelaide
March 9, 2014 8:46 pm

“Two of the gases are accumulating at a rate that is causing concern among researchers.”
Wake me up when it causes concern among people who are not financially dependant on this.

March 9, 2014 9:12 pm

“Katherine says: March 9, 2014 at 6:41 pm

“…Researchers from the University of East Anglia have discovered evidence of four new gases that can destroy ozone and are getting into the atmosphere from as yet unidentified sources.
“Scientists have identified four new man-made gases that are contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer.
Two of the gases are accumulating at a rate that is causing concern among researchers…””

If the sources are unidentified, how can they say the gases are man-made? How do they know there isn’t a natural source for the gases? After all, there are natural sources for CFCs; for example, volcanic processes, bacteria, fungi, plants, lichen, insects, and marine animals.”

Katherine nailed UEA bad science ergo assumptions in one shot. As others have regarding the physics and involved atmospherics.
Good post and topic ‘Just the Facts’! I confess to almost not reading further when I hit that UEA obstacle. Ruined reputation, absurd science, silly publications supported by pal review, and real scientists suffocating within UEA forced consensus.
Then again, perhaps UEA has been generating these vapors themselves cooking their strange brews in secret laboratories.
One thing is certain, UEA researchers have been Bogarting their own fumes in shadowy closed rooms for too long.

asybot
March 9, 2014 9:13 pm

@JohnB 6.43, The minute I saw the milkman episode I thought of UEA. Thanks for the laughs!

Mike Webb
March 9, 2014 9:19 pm

A mystery only to the paper’s authors, to be sure.
The interstellar medium is the source of the “unexpected” halides and nitrogen oxides, both of which have been visible to our spectroscopes for at least 40 years.

gymnosperm
March 9, 2014 10:11 pm

“Ozone Hole”, within an “Ozone Hole”, within another “Ozone Hole”…
And all within the lobe of the polar outbreak chillin’ the east coast. No lifting going on there. Sinking though. Makes sense that any vertical air movement through the layer would thin it.

March 9, 2014 10:18 pm

OK. That’s twice in one week that:

“we’re” all gonna die.”
🙂

littlepeaks
March 9, 2014 10:19 pm

Hmmm — don’t hear too much about sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), which supposedly has a “global warming potential of over 23,000 that of CO2.” Used a lot in electronics industry. Read that California is trying to limit it. I used to use it to check for leaks in a mass spectrometer (MS) set up in the negative chemical ionization (NCI) mode. The MS was so sensitive to SF6, that I could detect a minute leak in the instrument by spraying some into the air even when I was standing on the opposite side of the walkway.

Hoser
March 9, 2014 10:32 pm

O3 is not at the top of the atmosphere. When the polar air goes into super deep-freeze mode, it drops like a rock taking likely all but the highest stratosphere with it. This circulation is what the polar cell does, I’m suggesting the flow goes into high gear in winter. Thus, would we not expect the O3 level to fall naturally every winter at the poles regardless of hypothetical CFC effects? What am I missing?

Anne Ominous
March 9, 2014 10:32 pm

justthefactswuwt says:
What is particularly interesting is that there is an “Ozone Hole”, within an “Ozone Hole”, within another “Ozone Hole”…
Not really, and not really. That is: it’s not really interesting, because there’s not really a hole within a hole. It’s simply a gradient. It looks like discrete regions because of the intervals used to color it.
You wouldn’t look at a topographic map and say, “Look! There are little terraces at 20′ intervals around all those mountains!”
But that’s kind of what you’re saying here.

Jimbo
March 9, 2014 10:38 pm

Like I said yesterday they have to prepare a excuse in case the Ozone Hole does not close. 🙂

littlepeaks
March 9, 2014 10:53 pm

All —
Please disregard my previous post. (Should be a law against “distracted posting”.

Annabelle
March 9, 2014 10:55 pm

Agree with Jimbo. They are covering their backsides so that they will never have to admit they were wrong on CFCs. They can just blame yet another scare and it will all be “worse than we thought” as usual.

NRG22
March 9, 2014 11:00 pm

R. Shearer says:
March 9, 2014 at 4:28 pm
Supplemental information at least is not behind a pay wall. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ngeo2109-s1.pdf
————–
On page 2:
“It should be noted, that our observations do not prove that CFC-112, CFC-112a, CFC- 113a, and HCFC-133a are entirely man-made. If these substances are not conserved in firn air, or if they are produced by biologically mediated processes that have been enhanced in recent years such as by climate change, then there could be an alternate explanation for the observations reported here. Such alternate explanations cannot be entirely excluded but are very unlikely given the evidence for the industrial usage of these compounds.”
I stopped reading after that.

Philip T. Downman
March 9, 2014 11:01 pm

A real threat or just another hoax? What most of the above comments show, is the damage the CAGW-scam has done to the credibility of science. Whatever is reported hereafter, people won’t believe it. We make scornful comments at best or ignore it as just “green noise”. One day that might mask a signal.

Brian H
March 9, 2014 11:06 pm

Un-ban Freon. The Hole is fine.

ralfellis
March 9, 2014 11:23 pm

davidmhoffer says: March 9, 2014 at 4:18 pm
You’d never be able to just google it and buy it by the barrel right off the internet, that would never happen….
http://sporlan.en.alibaba.com/product/52095072250102950/CFC_113A_Refrigerant_Gas_Sale.html
_____________________________________
Nice one, Hoff. Made my day.
Concerned greenie wrings his hands and implores the world to find the source of this terrible chemical that is destroying the entire biosphere, within ten years surely……..
And Hoff finds is after 45 seconds on google…..
Ha, ha.

March 9, 2014 11:37 pm

“[a] …growing emission source somewhere, maybe from agricultural insecticides. We should find it and take it out of production.”
————
They want to emulate the success of the anti-DDT campaign.
The DDT ban made rock stars out of “environmentalists”, made a long-lived fad out of eco-sanctimony, paved the way for the anthropogenic fill-in-the-blank industry, and has been killing off humans – much to the delight of the green-malthusians.
What’s not to like?

NRG22
March 9, 2014 11:51 pm

OT
This morning the tv was on Fox News, and I walked in when their segment Housecall was on with Dr. Marc Siegel and Dr. David Samadi. There was a male and female host but I don’t know their names, sorry.
So the doctors are talking about a new “study” that says high protein diets are bad for you. Dr. Siegel hates Atkins and the Paleo diet because this study shows high protein diets “may” cause cancer. He goes on to say we know fat is bad for you, carbohydrates are bad for you, and protein is bad for you.
The other 3 start laughing. The woman says something like, “Water doctor, is water okay?” Dr. Samadi asks Dr. Siegel what you’re supposed to eat then and he replies, “fruits and vegetables.” Dr. Samadi says, “You can’t live on that.” Dr Siegel says yes you can, with a little protein, and olive oil. He had studied up on vegetable protein the night before. The night before!
Well now with this report and the possibility of pesticides making the hole in the ozone bigger, maybe fruits and veggies will be out too. At least we have water.
It seems climate science isn’t the only bad science these days.

pat
March 9, 2014 11:53 pm

imagine the papers to come from this 200+…
AUDIO: 10 Mar: ABC Australia: The World Today: International sea ice conference in Hobart
ELEANOR HALL: More than 200 scientists from around the world are spending this week in Hobart investigating why sea ice levels in the Arctic and Antarctic are responding differently to the warming of the planet…
FELICITY OGILVIE: The conference is about sea ice in a changing environment. If you’re saying that the changes in sea ice are due to climate change, why then would ice be increasing in Antarctica?
IAN SIMMONDS: There’s a number of reasons and again, we’re still coming to grips with what the total picture is in terms of the Antarctic. But in the Antarctic there are regions of sea ice which are rapidly decreasing in the so-called Bellingshausen Sea, which is near the Antarctic Peninsula. There’s a rapid decrease in sea ice there.
But in other parts of the continent around the coast, there’s dramatic increases. And when you take all those together, you get an actual total increase in the amount of sea ice…
IAN SIMMONDS: Now, there are features which are referred to in our business as “teleconnections,” which means if you impact on one part of the climate system, you’ll see a response in a remote location…
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s3960138.htm

Mike Tremblay
March 9, 2014 11:55 pm

davidmhoffer says:
March 9, 2014 at 4:18 pm
Yeah… like maybe someone somewhere still makes the stuff by the barrel? Nah, couldn’t be. If that existed, it would be run by mad scientists in a secret lab with security guards and and anyone who found out about it would be shot and dropped in the ocean with cement boots to keep the info out of the public. You’d never be able to just google it and buy it by the barrel right off the internet, that would never happen….
———————————————————————————————————————-
Don’t be fooled, these chemicals are still being produced in countries which were exempted under the rules of the Montreal Protocol. Freon 11 and others were still being produced in Mexico after their production was banned in the US. This was all part of the phase out system implemented. It is next to impossible to buy those chemicals and import them into Canada or the United States, and I assume the EU, despite the fact that they are available for sale on the internet, without exposing yourself to massive fines and criminal prosecution.

pat
March 10, 2014 12:00 am

website for the Hobart sea ice symposium:
InternationalSymposium on Sea Ice in a Changing Environment
http://seaice.acecrc.org.au/igs2014/scientific_workshops/a

sophocles
March 10, 2014 12:06 am

justsomeguy31167 says:
March 9, 2014 at 3:40 pm
I guess when you know the global warming meme is dying, it is time to start a new paranoia fest for the greenies.
======================================
Perhaps the current witch-hunt’s death can be seen written on some walls.
Let’s start a new one! More funding required!

Mike Tremblay
March 10, 2014 12:15 am

NRG22 says:
March 9, 2014 at 11:51 pm
OT
———————————————————————————————————————
Ha!!
Funny, it reminds me of an argument that I had about a Vegan diet. I maintain that a person will die from malnutrition if they live on a pure Vegan diet without supplements. Why? There is one amino acid which humans require which is only available in protein from an animal source, like milk or eggs. Humans are omnivores, which means, in essence, that we require to eat animal and vegetable proteins in order to maintain our proper nutritional levels. We also require minimal amounts of insignificant nutrients like Magnesium and even Uranium. To me, anyone who advocates anything less than a balance diet is a complete fool. This relates to my thinking on the Climate sciences by thinking that anyone who advocates a complete ban on anything is also a complete fool, because they have not investigated the consequences of their recommendations nor their advocacy.

michael hart
March 10, 2014 12:23 am

If you insert a mass spectrometer into a hole in the ground, or where the sun don’t shine, and turn the sensitivity to max, you will always be able to find another compound. Then just add the “oh noes”… and, et voilà… out pops another paper, ready for alarming press-release.

DavidCage
March 10, 2014 12:36 am

UEA has a brilliant department of creative writing. Looks as if the climate scientists were the failures from there. Scenarios implausible and poorly presented as well as all the characters involved looking ludicrous.

KNR
March 10, 2014 12:48 am

Researchers from the University of East Anglia – oxymoron?

March 10, 2014 12:53 am

It seems pretty clear to me from the contributions of jtf and others that the descending air in the polar vortices provides a means whereby the different ozone concentrations at upper levels are brought down to lower levels so as to affect ozone concentrations at those lower levels, especially above the poles.
There is the means whereby the gradient of tropopause height can change between equator and poles because it is the amount of ozone present which creates the tropopause in the first place by creating a temperature inversion in the stratosphere.
That, then, would be why solar variations affecting the ozone creation / destruction balance above 45km (apparently oppositely to the effect below 45km) can feed downward to alter the latitudinal positions of the climate zones and jets thereby altering global cloudiness which in turn affects the amount of solar energy able to enter the oceans to drive the climate system.

Mike McMillan
March 10, 2014 12:54 am

philincalifornia says: March 9, 2014 at 7:48 pm
… Yep, right here:…

Nice catch. Amazing what you find if you take the time to look.

Alan Robertson
March 10, 2014 12:57 am

They were too embarrassed to admit that they didn’t adequately study swamp gas for fear of the Swamp Thang.

Rabe
March 10, 2014 1:06 am

Are some patents running out, again?

March 10, 2014 1:07 am

we need to ban dihydrogen monoxide and start taxing anyone who uses it.

Jimbo
March 10, 2014 1:14 am

Here is the “send us more money” line.

“Two of the gases are accumulating at a rate that is causing concern among researchers.”

They don’t know the sources, it’s a mystery, but it looks like man’s pesticides. What a load of utter bollocks.

Berényi Péter
March 10, 2014 1:37 am

There is no proof mana is not emanating in large quantities from unidentified sources into the stratosphere and there is no telling what harm it may do there. However, a regular mana tax, payed by everyone below a certain income level, should resolve the issue swiftly.

PiperPaul
March 10, 2014 2:05 am

justthefactswuwt says:
March 9, 2014 at 6:56 pm
I am consistently amused by fear-mongering regarding various “holes”.
Bar question: “So where are you from?”
“A patch of fur about this big.”

urederra
March 10, 2014 2:09 am

Anne Ominous says:
March 9, 2014 at 10:32 pm
justthefactswuwt says:
What is particularly interesting is that there is an “Ozone Hole”, within an “Ozone Hole”, within another “Ozone Hole”…
Not really, and not really. That is: it’s not really interesting, because there’s not really a hole within a hole. It’s simply a gradient. It looks like discrete regions because of the intervals used to color it.

Exactly.
Properly speaking, it is never been a “hole”. Ozone concentration has never been zero. “scientists” have been calling a “hole” when the amount of ozone is lower than certain amount of Dobson units. But the rest of the population, politicians included, have understood that the ozone “hole” is a complete lack of ozone in a portion of the stratosphere.
That is like saying that a 1 meter wide wall is a wall but if you find a thinner portion of the wall which is only 0.5 meters wide, then you call that portion a hole. That is not a hole, a hole is when there is no bricks at all.
Or when you have a sheet of paper with a watermark and you say that the watermark is a hole.
Quoting from nasa´s site ozonewatch: http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/

The area of the ozone hole is determined from a map of total column ozone. It is calculated from the area on the Earth that is enclosed by a line with a constant value of 220 Dobson Units.

So, if the amount of ozone is 300 dobson units then it is a layer. but if the amount of ozone is 200 dobson units then it is a hole.
The term is totally misleading. And it is done so to scare people.

Stephen Richards
March 10, 2014 2:39 am

“Of the four species identified, CFC-113a seems the most worrying as there is a very small but growing emission source somewhere, maybe from agricultural insecticides. We should find it and take it out of production.”
Let’s hope it’s his ass then he can take himself “out of production”.

March 10, 2014 3:09 am

Uhh ooh. We had better reverse all industrialization immediately and go live in caves as hunter-gatherers.

ROM
March 10, 2014 3:37 am

Please do not give the University of East Anglia too much credit for being the producers of the worst science in the western world.
We would like you to also consider the University of NSW when voting on this category.
____________________
The only currency left for so much of what now is supposed to pass as a chimera called science is “Fear”.
[ chimera= a thing that is hoped or wished for but in fact is illusory or impossible to achieve ]
So much of what we see classified as science is now nothing more than another deliberately Fear inducing claim dressed up as some sort of claim to be science, a science that is specifically shaped to try and increase the levels of “Fear” amongst the public.
It is a very bad omen and a very sad day indeed for the future of Science when Science can seemingly no longer rely on it’s hard earned past integrity, it’s curiosity, it’s honesty with itself , the hard earned public respect garnered by the real scientists of the past and it’s long established desire and goals to try and answer the questions that confront mankind in every field.
Instead science has turned to a strategy of deliberately stimulating an emotion which is one of the most traumatic of all human emotions, that of “Fear”, to try and achieve it’s no longer humanity orientated goals but instead it’s new self aggrandizing and self indulgent goals of increasing it’s own power, influence and wealth regardless of the well being and at the expense of those whose taxes pay for that very so called “Science” .
Increasingly today’s Science is seen to be deliberately using and promoting and exploiting to the utmost one of the most basic of human emotions, that of “Fear” to try and increase it’s influence, it’s wealth and it’s political power.
In doing so it has sold it’s now sad and miserable shrunken soul for plate of an increasingly illusory and increasingly indigestible bowl of a contemptible porridge of dollar notes with no substance and of no perceivable benefit in the end but with a huge latent capacity to do almost untold damage and harm to both science and to mankind.

Admad
March 10, 2014 3:47 am

Holy cow, I’ve just discovered another source of Gullible Warming, it’s called Nonexistentium and I need $5m immediately to research it. Anyone?

March 10, 2014 3:52 am

These people always need a new scam on the boil. After initial stunning successes with DDT, CFCs , Y2K and Global Warming, the complete fiasco of Y2K, the persistence of the (so-called) Ozone Hole and the degradation of the Global Warming Scam by continued failures in forecasts, it was time to launch a new Scam. This time the money is in banning 4 new chemicals and diverting agriculture into new genetically engineered products without much doubt. The fact that it emanates from UEA somewhat blunts its message as that place is now seen widely as Scam-Central.
The DDT ban continues to impact on the health of millions of people without causing any real benefit. The impact of the CFC ban, Global Warming Alarmist Mania and restrictions continue to impact everyone’s lives negatively with no visible effect on the weather (climate). This new scam will have similar effects. These people are the visible surface of a vast world-wide criminal enterprise aimed at destroying human lives and welfare for private gain.

Stacey
March 10, 2014 4:13 am

Researchers from the University of Everything Alarming are alarmed?

cedarhill
March 10, 2014 4:16 am

This is really bad — we’re into reruns. And not very popular ones at th\at

Gary Pearse
March 10, 2014 4:46 am

Man oh man, we may have got into their emails too early. Imagine what a treasure trove of email malfeasance we would have had in the last several years. Of course now, since the UEA has banned emailing, we are going to be left in the dark on all this maneuvering. I can see the progression toward banning the UEA with this latest piece of junk.

Gary Pearse
March 10, 2014 5:02 am

justthefactswuwt says:
March 10, 2014 at 4:33 am
“but it is really interesting, because it indicates that the likely cause is dynamical versus chemical processes.”
Can I pitch you with the dynamical process of all the gases except O2 being diamagnetic and thereby being repelled by a magnetic field, whereas O2 is comparatively strongly magnetic. You may have seen me putting this forward on a few occasions. In one of your posts above you mention there is also a Methane hole, nitrogen oxide hole and I’ve shown there is a CO 2 hole as well. I’m predicting there is a noble gas hole as well. On this subject, has anyone measured WHAT IS IN the ozone hole? I would say it is enriched in oxygen. Not only does a mag field push the diamagnetic molecules away, it pulls in O2 which further assists in displacing the others. Your polar winds and downdrafts would not just blow the Ozone away (and methane, nitrogen oxides) it would blow them all away. I know it is a low but I’d like to see the quantification of all the hole. This is what happens when we chisel an assumption in stone. It is not science to just say WHAT IS NOT THERE! From my thread on the recent “Claim: Would have happened to…” these links:
Gary Pearse says:
March 8, 2014 at 5:16 pm
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/

Gary Pearse
March 10, 2014 5:11 am

Also, look at Nasa’s Antarctic O-hole. There is a collar of concentrated O3 around the O-hole which is up to over 440 dobson units – am I the only one to have noticed this? As in your N-Pole example, the ozone isn’t depleted it is pushed away like the roll neck of turtleneck sweater. Why not calculate the total volume of Ozone and see if all these features balance or there is a loss. Science and logic have to be put back into the picture. Here is the image from Nasa
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/ozone.php
Yeah, I think wind is a factor but mag is the fractionator.

GeeJam
March 10, 2014 5:55 am

Latest: UEA identify the four ozone threatening gases:
1. Itride-Lyinabowtit (I3LiBTT)
2. Silicon-thataint-gonawerk (SiO2TGWK)
3. Iso-noimrite (C5H8NIMRT)
4. Arsinetworeminegan (AsH3WA)

Tom J
March 10, 2014 6:28 am

UEA:
Honest, we really are still relevant!
sarc

Gail Combs
March 10, 2014 6:52 am

Time to DEFUND science and Universities.
Why should we pay for propaganda mills when our debt is sky rocketing?

Crispin in Waterloo
March 10, 2014 7:08 am

KNR says:
>Researchers from the University of East Anglia – oxymoron?
It is interesting to see what pops out of UEA when they decide to go ‘sciencing’. From the analyses above it is pretty clear that there are natural sources of all 4 of these chemicals as well as clear evidence that they are neither new nor significant in concentration.
Further, it is abundantly clear that the decrease in ozone is caused by low-ozone air descending at both poles. That means the Montreal Protocol was pointless save as an exercise in creating unified action against a common threat. Perhaps it is time to give prominence to the common threat posed by shoddy, speculative Hollywood Science (HS). HS is the kind of brainless crap in movies like “The Day After Tomorrow” or the outstretched finger-grasping by the ‘hero’ at the end of his tether in “Gravity”.
Findings things we already know are there is hardly publication-worthy stuff. Calling something ‘new’ when it is listed in public documents shows ignorance.
Is anyone, anyone, surprised that alarmist Hollywood Science wrapped in speculative ignorance has, once again, emerged, peer-reviewed, from the University of East Anglia?

DD More
March 10, 2014 7:39 am

Let’s look at the cost comparison.
World wide increase the cost of refrigeration and now agricultural insecticides which we should find it and take it out of production.
Versus
Buy sunscreen and tell the under 5,000 residents / visitors to Antarctica to keep their shirts on in November (no sun anyway).

Phil.
March 10, 2014 8:16 am

Hoser says:
March 9, 2014 at 10:32 pm
O3 is not at the top of the atmosphere. When the polar air goes into super deep-freeze mode, it drops like a rock taking likely all but the highest stratosphere with it. This circulation is what the polar cell does, I’m suggesting the flow goes into high gear in winter. Thus, would we not expect the O3 level to fall naturally every winter at the poles regardless of hypothetical CFC effects? What am I missing?

That the ozone level drops in spring and early summer, not winter! There is no UV there in winter so the photodissociative formation of the Cl atoms does not take place then, but starts to take place when the sunlight returns to the Antarctic stratosphere.

Oscar Bajner
March 10, 2014 9:24 am

Non Anglia, sed Angler – Just another fishy story from the super sleuths at Unbalievable Extroardinary Amaztatic.
Let me suggest the following “sources” of the new gaz:
1. Precisely where the latest spontaneous self immolating Tesla car is (was).
2. Look for a large, sweaty Stoat, pounding a keyboard and swearing viciously.

March 10, 2014 10:58 am

Was there really any need to read this after the words “East Anglia”?

Keith Willshaw
March 10, 2014 12:08 pm

CFC-112 and CFC-112a, CFC-113 and HCFC-133a are hardly NEW issues. They were banned under the Montreal Protocol. CFC-113a seems to be a by product of CCF-14 synthesis and/or decomposition of R-13.
see http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/ods/index.html

Specter
March 10, 2014 12:19 pm

“KNR says:
March 10, 2014 at 12:48 am
Researchers from the University of East Anglia – oxymoron?”
Can we just shorten it all to UEA=morons?

Bart
March 10, 2014 12:50 pm

fhhaynie says:
March 9, 2014 at 4:24 pm
Asked the same question on earlier thread. Got this response from John M. What I’d like is some estimate of production which could be used to correlate with it.

Leonard Jones
March 10, 2014 1:03 pm

I remember an episode of Family Ties (1982-1989) in which the younger daughter went on
a wicked environmental crusade, getting rid of all the “evil” chemicals in the house. This
included aerosol cans. But the government banned CFC propellants in 1978!
The other major use of CFC’s is as a refrigerant, but all CFC’s removed from an A/C unit
or refrigerator is treated like spent nuclear fuel rods! The stuff is sucked out of the system
and pumped into a storage tank and eventually destroyed. Can someone please tell me
how this can still be a problem?

steverichards1984
March 10, 2014 1:26 pm

I read in the supplementary information that they use multiple models!!!!…..
A state of the art model of trace gas transport in firn has been used in this study 16; compared with other similar models in 8). Such models need as input diffusion coefficient ratios in air
of the target species with respect to CO2. The values used calculated from critical
temperature and volume data are 203.83 for CFC-112 and CFC-112a, 187.38 for
CFC-113a and 118.49 for HCFC-133a, as detailed in the supplement of 8. Forward
firn models such as those inter-compared in 8 allow calculating concentrations in firn
from a known atmospheric history. Reconstructing atmospheric concentration
histories from depth – concentration profiles in firn requires to use inverse modelling
techniques. This inverse problem has multiple solutions S3. A robustness oriented
method for choosing the optimal solution, adapted to the scarcity of firn data (16 to 19
depth levels in this study), has been recently developed 21.
The scarcity of
measurements is handled based on the mathematical development for robust solving
of inverse problems from S4. The reconstructed scenarios, together with their match of
the firn data are shown on Figures S11 and S12.

Khwarizmi
March 10, 2014 6:01 pm

JustTheFacts
CFCs do not appear offer a plausible explanation for Northern “Ozone Hole”, i.e.
per NASA:

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/miniholes_NH.html

In a mini-hole,
[i] ozone is rearranged by the weather systems
[ii] and the ozone returns to its initial levels after the these weather
systems pass.”

Apart from scale, how is that any different to the southern maxi-hole?
Given that southern depletion also appears to be nothing more than a temporary, cyclical,
seasonal rearrangement of ozone concentration, why does the Antarctic phenomena require
CFCs/chlorine & stratospheric ice crystals?
via Gary Pearse (previous thread), NASA again (annotated):

The ozone hole grows throughout the early spring
[i] until temperatures warm
[ii] and the polar vortex weakens,
[iii] ending the isolation of the air in the polar vortex.
[iv] As [ozone-enriched] air from the surrounding latitudes mixes into the
[ozone-depleted] polar region, the ozone-destroying forms of chlorine disperse [or
become redundant]
.
The ozone layer stabilizes until the following spring.
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/hole_SH.html

With an isolated & poorly insolated polar vortex, you don’t need any chlorine.

Mervyn
March 11, 2014 12:25 am

The IPCC and its alarmist faithful followers have been crying wolf for over two decades over dangerous AGW. In the process, they have brought science into disrepute. Consequently, even if these new gases were indeed a serious concern, none of us will give a damn!

Phil.
March 11, 2014 10:21 am

fhhaynie says:
March 9, 2014 at 4:24 pm
Has anybody ever measured the amount of CFCs or chlorine actually in the “ozone hole” over time?

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/images/ozone/chlorine_graph.gif
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Ozone_cfc_trends.png/250px-Ozone_cfc_trends.png
justthefactswuwt says:
March 10, 2014 at 6:51 pm
My question is, how big would the Ozone “Hole” be if CFCs didn’t exist? The evidence indicates that it would be the same size, as Ozone “Hole” size appears to depend on how large and strong the Polar Vortex is, and how deep it penetrates into the atmosphere.

I disagree, the data indicates that the Dobson number would be about 325 under the hole in the spring (October) rather than less than 100 at the minimum.
http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/tour_images/total_ozone.gif

Khwarizmi
March 11, 2014 1:40 pm

phil,
please try to explain why the highest concentrations of ozone on Earth are always found around the perimeter of the depletion region.
Look at the accretion disc instead of the hole, and try to explain it for us all.
Good luck!

Phil.
March 12, 2014 10:57 am

justthefactswuwt says:
March 11, 2014 at 7:06 pm
Phil. says: March 11, 2014 at 10:21 am
“I disagree, the data indicates that the Dobson number would be about 325 under the hole in the spring (October) rather than less than 100 at the minimum.”
No, even if this data was accurate, this would only effect the concentration of ozone within the Ozone “Hole”, the Ozone Hole itself would be same size:
No the hole is the result of the concentration distribution.
It terms of the data you present;
NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source
it is suspect. Firstly, there is no identification of the source of the data on the graph, or on the page where it can be found:
http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/part1.html

It is the Hally Bay data shown on the NOAA site as indicated on the graph legend. You can read more about it here:
http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/part2.html
It appears to misleading version of this graph, which at least shows the source and variability of the associated measurements:
As opposed to the British Antarctic Survey data which I showed which shows the confidence intervals for the annual october data. And you have it backwards the Hally Bay data came first!
Halley Bay, is, unsurprisingly, on the coast of Antarctica;
and thus is not well situated to measure a phenomenon that is usually centered over the South Pole. Halley Bay represented a single measurement location on a continent that is 5.405 million sq miles (14 million km²), and Ozone “Hole” that exceeds 18 million km² at its maximum.

Actually it’s perfectly situated and was the location from where the existence of the ‘hole’ was first detected by Farmar et al.!
Note the position of Hally Bay wrt the ‘hole’ in this image.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/NASA_and_NOAA_Announce_Ozone_Hole_is_a_Double_Record_Breaker.png
Furthermore the quality of the data is suspect, i.e.:
Not suspect at all, except for someone with a bias such as yourself.
No persistent Ozone “Hole” has formed in the Northern Hemisphere, rather the current Northern Ozone “Hole” appears to be the result of dynamical forces of the Northern Polar Vortex, thus the Southern Hemisphere Ozone “Hole” likely caused by the same dynamical forces.
That’s because the destruction of ozone is enhanced by some heterogeneous kinetics involving ice crystals (with nitric acid) in polar stratospheric clouds which need low temperatures for their formation (below -78ºC), these temperatures (and clouds) are encountered much more commonly over the Antarctic than the Arctic which is why such holes are infrequently encountered in the NH. These crystals accumulate chlorine in the form of ClONO2 during the winter, during the spring the sunlight melts the crystals thereby releasing a considerable amount of ClO and Cl at the same time and place as the UV arrives causing considerable O3 depletion.

Phil.
March 12, 2014 11:13 am

Khwarizmi says:
March 11, 2014 at 1:40 pm
phil,
please try to explain why the highest concentrations of ozone on Earth are always found around the perimeter of the depletion region.
Look at the accretion disc instead of the hole, and try to explain it for us all.
Good luck!

No luck needed, it’s the result of Brewer-Dobson circulation. The air from the tropics rises and travels poleward and as it rises through the lower stratosphere ozone accumulates due to photolysis. Once it enters the region of high Cl and ClO then depletion begins.

Phil.
March 13, 2014 8:11 am

justthefactswuwt says:
March 12, 2014 at 10:04 pm
Phil. says: March 12, 2014 at 10:57 am
“No the hole is the result of the concentration distribution.”
No, the “hole” is the result of the dynamical forces of the polar vortex, including the naturally occurring low pressure area within the Polar Vortex;

The ‘hole’ is the result of ozone concentration regardless of the dynamical situation without the chemical depletion there would be no ‘hole’!
and because;
“in the center of the Antarctic vortex. Air from very high altitudes descends vertically through the center of the vortex, moving air to lower altitudes over several months.”
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/HALOE-Ozone.html
Air towards the top of the stratosphere and bottom of the mesosphere has lower concentrations of ozone;

The graph you showed applies to the atmosphere in general where the stratosphere is ‘stratified’, but does not apply over the Antarctic when the hole exists. Here’s some real data from that location:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/sp_profile.gif
As such, when this “air from very high altitudes descends vertically through the center of the vortex”
This quote is correct, however your assertion which follow is wrong!
it displaces the air below it, decreasing the concentration of ozone within the Polar Vortex.
Clearly the actual data shows that the ozone concentration above the ‘hole’ is actually higher than the ozone concentration at the lower altitudes. As that relatively ozone rich air falls below ~20km it encounters the Cl and ClO and the chemical kinetics takes over and that ozone is destroyed.
The combination of the low pressure area formed by the centrifugal force of the Polar Vortex and the air from very high altitudes with lower concentrations of ozone that descends through the center of the vortex, creates the “Ozone Hole”:
Clearly not!
“As opposed to the British Antarctic Survey data which I showed which shows the confidence intervals for the annual october data. And you have it backwards the Hally Bay data came first”!
That’s funny, they have the same confidence intervals for the Dobson Spectrophotometer data in 1956 as for the TOMS data in 1995. Perhaps if they increase those intervals by an order of magnitude that graph would more accurate….,

Total rubbish, you have no basis for that assertion, the BAS data was made using an instrument on the ground which is calibrated
in situ and which still exists, what the TOMS instruments report has no bearing on the original BAS data.
“Actually it’s perfectly situated and was the location from where the existence of the ‘hole’ was first detected by Farmar et al.!”
Perfectly situated would be the center of Antarctica, i.e.:

As shown by the images Hally Bay is close to the center of the ‘hole’, in the image you show above it’s approximately equidistant with the S Pole.
The HALOE site which you quoted mostly concentrates on the destruction of ozone by chemical means, for example:
“Ozone Destruction
Ozone in the stratosphere is destroyed when it combines with chlorine, forming oxygen and chlorine monoxide. A single chlorine molecule can destroy 100,000 ozone molecules in its lifetime.”
And: “HALOE’s measurements have settled a crucial scientific issue by confirming that CFCs are responsible for the elevated chlorine levels in the stratosphere that lead to ozone loss.”
“HALOE is the first instrument that has been able to confirm the influence of human activities on the amount of ozone-destroying chlorine in the stratosphere.”
Apparently you ignored the whole site except the last paragraph, did you hope that no-one would read it?

Phil.
March 14, 2014 7:28 am

justthefactswuwt says:
March 13, 2014 at 9:23 pm
Phil. says: March 13, 2014 at 8:11 am
Your graph demonstrates my point quite well, thank you.

Only if you’re completely unable to read a graph!
“Clearly the actual data shows that the ozone concentration above the ‘hole’ is actually higher than the ozone concentration at the lower altitudes. As that relatively ozone rich air falls below ~20km it encounters the Cl and ClO and the chemical kinetics takes over and that ozone is destroyed.”
What are you looking at? Both of the graphs show that there is clearly less Ozone up at 30, 40 and 50 km, which is the “air from very high altitudes” that “descends vertically through the center of the vortex, moving air to lower altitudes over several months.”

Clearly I have to explain the graph you’re looking at since you’re either incapable of reading it or are so consumed by your bias that you don’t want to see it!
At about 31km the pO3 is ~3mPa, as the air descends to ~23km the pO3 increases to ~6mPa due to the photolysis reactions. As it descends over the next couple of km the pO3 rapidly drops to less than 1mPa, so clearly there is more O3 at 30km than at 20km not less as you incorrectly assert above. Your mechanism is contradicted by the data and the chemical kinetic mechanism is supported by the data as shown. Note that this decrease occurs in October but not in July, when the pO3 continues to increase, peaking at ~16mPa where the temperature and pressure has increased and the chemical mechanism (Chapman etc) is expected to deplete O3. Below ~13km and above ~23km there’s no difference between Oct and July values which your mechanism is unable to explain!
I cited 5 sources supporting my assertion that the quality of the historical Ozone data is suspect, here;
You cited no such data regarding the BAS data which I cited earlier.
“As shown by the images Hally Bay is close to the center of the ‘hole’, in the image you show above it’s approximately equidistant with the S Pole.”
Yes, in that image, but in other images it’s not:

It’s under the ‘hole’ in all those images you showed since 1984 (when the ‘hole’ was still small) the S Pole was at the edge in Oct 84 by the way.

Phil.
March 15, 2014 7:26 am

justthefactswuwt says:
March 14, 2014 at 8:54 pm
Phil. says: March 14, 2014 at 7:28 am
I asked you “What do you think causes the water vapor, nitrogen oxide and methane “holes”?” and you did not respond. Can we take this as an admission that you cannot answer this question without contradicting your claim that “regardless of the dynamical situation without the chemical depletion there would be no ‘hole’!”?

Water vapor decreases in the stratosphere because of condensation, after all that’s how Brewer discovered the circulation that’s named after him. As it descends over the pole the extremely low temperature (-78ºC) causes even more condensation (PSCs), NO reacts to form nitric acid which also condenses in the PSCs it is also sequestered in the form of ClONO2. Again these processes are chemical in nature something you choose to ignore. Methane is depleted in the stratosphere by oxidation (with OH) and is a source of about a third of stratospheric water vapor.
“Clearly the actual data shows that the ozone concentration above the ‘hole’ is actually higher than the ozone concentration at the lower altitudes.”
We seem to be at an impasse here. When there is not a Polar Vortex in the Southern Hemisphere, does ozone concentration increase or decrease between 25 km and 50 km?

The data I provided from sondes shows that O3 increases between 50km and 25km then below 25km dramatically drops how does your mechanism explain that? The graph shows that above 25km the O3 profile is the same in July and Oct i.e. it is not effected by the presence of the vortex, it is below 25km where the changes occur!
And lest you think at this is only the case in Northern Hemisphere, and in the Southern Hemisphere magically, “ozone rich air falls below ~20km it encounters the Cl and ClO and the chemical kinetics takes over and that ozone is destroyed”, let us also look at the Southern Ozone “Hole”:
A bit disingenuous of you to omit the qualifier ‘relatively’ from the above quote! It might seem like ‘magic’ to someone like you who doesn’t understand chemical kinetics but to a chemical kineticist it’s elementary.
I looked at the data you provided, on that date the ‘hole’ is centered over the peninsula, at the various altitudes the data is as follows:
Altitude min O3
55km 2.5ppm
50 4.0
42 5.0
35 8.0
31 8.0
23 2.0!
So your data bears out the sonde data I cited, O3 increases as the air descends then dramatically drops below about 25km, which is due to chemical reactions.
Unfortunately, NOAA’s Ozone Mixing Archives;
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/sbuv2to/archive/sh/
don’t go below 30 hPa/mb ~ 23 km, so we can’t see the magical “encounters” “below ~20km” where the “Cl and ClO and the chemical kinetics takes over and that ozone is destroyed”.

As shown above we see the start of that with a 4-fold drop in O3 concentration!
However, it is apparent that the air within the Polar Vortex “above ~20km” has low concentrations of ozone, thus your assertion “that relatively ozone rich air falls below ~20km” is falsified. Can you admit that you are wrong?
Actually your data confirms the data that I cited that above 20km the air has higher concentrations of O3 than below during the times of the spring ‘hole’. So will you now admit that you are wrong as shown by your own data?
“At about 31km the pO3 is ~3mPa, as the air descends to ~23km the pO3 increases to ~6mPa due to the photolysis reactions. As it descends over the next couple of km the pO3 rapidly drops to less than 1mPa, so clearly there is more O3 at 30km than at 20km not less as you incorrectly assert above.”
Now you are just playing games because you know you’re losing.

No, that is an accurate description of the sonde data and as shown above of the data you produced!
There is clearly less O2 with altitude. I never asserted that “is more O3 at 30km than at 20km”,
No I said that and was correct, I quoted you correctly, unfortunately the data shows you to be wrong, as the air descends the concentration of O3 increases until kinetics takes over below ~25km in the spring and it dramatically decreases.
I wrote that “that there is clearly less Ozone up at 30, 40 and 50 km”. You can play with the starting point, ~23 km, 20 km or ~ 18 km depending on day, season, vortex size, strength and penetration, but that doesn’t change the fact that there is ” is clearly less Ozone in the air up at 30, 40 and 50 km which “descends vertically through the center of the vortex, moving air to lower altitudes over several months.”
Clearly both sets of data show that this ‘fact’ is not true!
Furthermore, Ozone-Sonde don’t measure absolute Ozone concentration rather;
“ozone-sonde observations often use the ‘partial pressure’ of ozone as their unit.

Which is an ‘absolute’ measure, ppm is a ‘mixing ratio’ or ‘relative’ measure.
ozone-sonde observations using “‘partial pressure’ of ozone as their unit” can be misleading to the uninformed.
Perhaps, I work with them on a regular basis and don’t find them to be misleading, in any case the mixing ratio data you cite tells the same story so there should be no confusion.
A simple dynamical mechanism explains the observations, whereas the convoluted chemical mechanism you assert is falsified by the observations that the Ozone Hole extends well above the supposed “~20km” where you claim “relatively ozone rich air falls below” and “encounters the Cl and ClO and the chemical kinetics takes over and that ozone is destroyed.”
The observations indicate that as the air descends the concentration of O3 inside the vortex increases until it reaches ~25km whereupon it rapidly decreases, you have not explained that with your dynamical mechanism.
“Re-evaluating many total ozone series back to 1957 based on meta-information and calibration information” is the very definition of suspect data…
You claimed that you cited 5 references, now it’s just one which doesn’t demonstrate what you claim. It’s not ‘suspect’, it’s what good scientists do, you constantly check and recalibrate your apparatus and keep good records of all your readings and the calibration, and constantly re-evaluate procedures and data. That’s why I kept sources of analytical standard gas mixtures in my laboratory at significant expense.

Phil.
March 16, 2014 6:43 am

justthefactswuwt says:
March 16, 2014 at 1:11 am
Phil. says: March 15, 2014 at 7:26 am
So you think that the Ozone “Hole”, Water Vapor “Hole”, Nitrogen Oxide “Hole” and Methane “Hole” all occur within the Polar Vortex solely due to condensation and chemical mechanisms? Excluding condensation and chemical mechanisms, do you think there would be any “Holes” within the low pressure area and descending cold air in the Polar Vortex?

Correct, those ‘holes’ as you describe them all involve reactive and condensible species.
Firstly, you didn’t quote me, you wrote “so clearly there is more O3 at 30km than at 20km not less as you incorrectly assert above.”, which is not a “quote” but rather an intentional misstatement. I wrote that “that there is clearly less Ozone up at 30, 40 and 50 km”, and my statement is correct. You just want to get bogged down in the minutiae…
The ‘minutiae’ you refer to is the actual data which you chose to ignore! Below is the actual quote that I referred to.
Your graph demonstrates my point quite well, thank you.
“Clearly the actual data shows that the ozone concentration above the ‘hole’ is actually higher than the ozone concentration at the lower altitudes. As that relatively ozone rich air falls below ~20km it encounters the Cl and ClO and the chemical kinetics takes over and that ozone is destroyed.”
What are you looking at? Both of the graphs show that there is clearly less Ozone up at 30, 40 and 50 km, which is the “air from very high altitudes” that “descends vertically through the center of the vortex, moving air to lower altitudes over several months.”

Your statement clearly is wrong, here is that data you were looking at since you appear to have difficulty with graphs:
Alt O3
40 no data
30 ~3 mPa
25 ~5
23 ~7
20 ~1
17 ~0 (in July ~15)
15 ~1 (~15)
12 ~4 (~4)
10 ~4
So the “air from very high altitudes” that “descends vertically through the center of the vortex, moving air to lower altitudes over several months”, shows a gradually increasing level of O3 due to photolysis and chemical reaction. Between 23km where it peaks and 20km the O3 concentration drops to about zero and stays that way until you get below 15km (the range where PSCs are formed). In what way is there clearly less Ozone up at 30km than in the ‘hole’?
The data you provided goes to higher altitudes:
Altitude min O3
55km 2.5ppm
50 4.0
42 5.0
35 8.0
31 8.0
23 2.0!
It shows the same effect, there is more O3 at 50, 40 and 30 km than there is at 23km.
“The observations indicate that as the air descends the concentration of O3 inside the vortex increases until it reaches ~25km whereupon it rapidly decreases, you have not explained that with your dynamical mechanism.”
Yes, I have, i.e. Vortex decent below ~25km causes O3 to rapidly decrease, as the low pressure and relatively low ozone in the air descending within the polar vortex create an area of low Ozone concentration within the Ozone layer. And thus an Ozone “Hole” occurs, with no need for a chemical mechanism.

How on earth does this describe what happens? At 31km this descending air has 8ppm and then it drops to 2.0 by 23km, how if there’s no chemistry, by your dynamical mechanism how does that happen? You are the one who is relying on magic, you’re saying that air with 8ppm of O3 descends a few km and then 3/4 of the O3 just disappears! Where does it go?
You still have not explained why there is an Ozone “Hole” at 2 hPa/mb – ~42 km;
above the “~20km” or “25km” where you claim “relatively ozone rich air falls below” and “encounters the Cl and ClO and the chemical kinetics takes over and that ozone is destroyed.”

Now I see your problem, you don’t know what the ozone hole is! At 42km you see the descending air per Brewer-Dobson, that is normal. In the summer and fall that descending air gradually increases to ~16ppm between ~20 and 15km, that is ‘normal’. In the spring that peak drops to about zero due to the photolysis reactions, that is the Ozone hole! In the 1999 data I cited the data above 23km is unchanged between July and October and July has a Dobson number of 255, in October the Dobson number drops to 111, entirely due to the changes between 23 and 10km, that is the ‘hole’, it always refers to the changes in the lower stratosphere not the upper stratosphere. The fact that it is defined by the Dobson number appears to have confused you, that defines the extent of the ‘hole’, but the ‘hole’ itself is the loss of ozone in the lower stratosphere.

Phil.
March 17, 2014 7:11 am

justthefactswuwt says:
March 16, 2014 at 9:13 pm
Phil. says: March 16, 2014 at 6:43 am
Correct, those ‘holes’ as you describe them all involve reactive and condensible species.
I don’t necessarily disagree that they “all involve reactive and condensible species.” The question you did not answer, is “excluding condensation and chemical mechanisms, do you think there would be any “Holes” within the low pressure area and descending cold air in the Polar Vortex?”</em.
Clearly not, bearing in mind that you're not very clear on what constitutes a 'hole'. The reason that the stratosphere is depleted in H2O is because it is a condensible species. Some of this loss is made up by the reaction of CH4, the concentration of those gases depends on those properties, it is pointless to speculate on what they would be otherwise!
“So the “air from very high altitudes” that “descends vertically through the center of the vortex, moving air to lower altitudes over several months”, shows a gradually increasing level of O3 due to photolysis and chemical reaction. Between 23km where it peaks and 20km the O3 concentration drops to about zero and stays that way until you get below 15km (the range where PSCs are formed). In what way is there clearly less Ozone up at 30km than in the ‘hole’?”
You seem to be confused by the data from one day and at very specific altitudes, versus seeing the bigger picture. I will offer two very simple statements with supporting data:

The confusion is all yours which is why you appear to think the loss of O3 occurs without chemical reaction contrary to all the scientists who study the phenomenon and contrary to the data (even that you provide yourself). You appear to have a phobia about chemistry and clearly don’t understand it which is why you don’t understand what’s going on.
The Polar Vortex transports air from higher in the atmosphere to lower in the atmosphere:
“In the NH vortex, air parcels which were initialized at 18 km on November 1, descended about 6 km by March 21, while air initially at 25 km descended 9 km in the same time period. This represents an average descent rate in the lower stratosphere of 1.3 to 2 km per month. Air initialized at 50 km descended 27 km between November 1 and March 21.
In the SH vortex, parcels initialized at 18 km on March 1, descended 3 km, while air at 25 km descended 5–7 km by the end of October. This is equivalent to an average descent in the lower stratosphere of 0.4 to 0.9 km per month during this 8-month period. Air initialized at 52 km descended 26–29 km between March 1 and October 31. In both the NH and the SH, computed descent rates increased markedly with height. The descent for the NH winter of 1992–1993 and the SH winter of 1992 computed with a three-dimensional trajectory model using the same radiation code was within 1 to 2 km of that calculated by the one-dimensional model, thus validating the vortex averaging procedure. The computed descent rates generally agree well with observations of long-lived tracers, thus validating the radiative transfer model.”
https://earthref.org/ERR/59278/
As a result, one would expect to see an Ozone “Hole” below ~23, because air parcels with lower concentrations of Ozone are descended below this point within the Polar Vortex. Do you agree or disagree?

Totally disagree, you’re ignoring the data that you provided.
“The data you provided goes to higher altitudes:
Altitude min O3
55km 2.5ppm
50 4.0
42 5.0
35 8.0
31 8.0
23 2.0!
It shows the same effect, there is more O3 at 50, 40 and 30 km than there is at 23km.”
Again, this is one day and is occurs above “the altitudes of 12 and 20 kilometers” where “Antarctic ozone depletion occurs primarily”.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/spo_oz/1220plot.html
Do you think NOAA is wrong about the height where “Antarctic ozone depletion occurs”? Furthermore, using the data I provided above and you cited, Ozone at ~55 km 2.5ppm, “air initialized at 52 km descended 26–29 km between March 1 and October 31″, Ozone at ~ 23 km “2.0!”, magic how that happens…
“How on earth does this describe what happens? At 31km this descending air has 8ppm and then it drops to 2.0 by 23km, how if there’s no chemistry, by your dynamical mechanism how does that happen? You are the one who is relying on magic, you’re saying that air with 8ppm of O3 descends a few km and then 3/4 of the O3 just disappears! Where does it go?”

You continue your disingenuous behavior of removing adverbs from quotes which makes me suspect your honesty! There is a huge difference between “ozone depletion occurs primarily” and “Antarctic ozone depletion occurs”. So no NOAA is not wrong but the data provided by both of us shows that the depletion started on those occasions above 20km, that is not contradictory with the statement that it occurs primarily between 12 and 20 km since that is where most of the O3 is prior to its destruction by Cl released by the PSCs that are formed in that altitude range. In any given spring season the exact height at which these processes occur will be different.
To address your inability of seeing what your own data shows I will go through it slowly for you.
using the data I provided above and you cited, Ozone at ~55 km 2.5ppm, “air initialized at 52 km descended 26–29 km between March 1 and October 31″, Ozone at ~ 23 km “2.0!”, magic how that happens…
Not magic, chemistry, why do you ignore what happens at the intervening heights?
That packet at ~55km starts off with 2.5ppm O3 it takes about a month to descend to ~50km, during that time the data shows that the O3 concentration increased to 4ppm due to photolysis reactions. Over the next month or so it descends to ~42km and O3 further increases to 5ppm, followed by a further increase in O3 (to 8 ppm) as it continues to descend through 35 km. Other than in the spring further descent leads to further increase in O3 (to ~16 ppm) between 20 and 15 km followed by a decrease in O3 to tropospheric values. This is what happened even in the spring before the advent of CFCs. However in the spring that your data refers to between 31 km and 23 km the O3 concentration in that packet of air drops to 2 ppm, your mechanism has no way to account for this!
The concentration of O3 in the descending packets of air increases and decreases due to chemical processes and can’t be explained without considering that chemistry.
“At 42km you see the descending air per Brewer-Dobson, that is normal. In the summer and fall that descending air gradually increases to ~16ppm between ~20 and 15km, that is ‘normal’.”
Great, now we are making headway, you accept that there is a naturally occurring Ozone “Hole” within the Polar Vortex at ~42 km. Now tell us, at what altitude does this natural Ozone “Hole” become an unnatural Ozone “Hole”?

In the spring when the air in the vicinity of the PSCs warms up and they release Cl2 and the UV light causes the photolysis to Cl and the consequent rapid depletion of the O3. The altitude range where this occurs is somewhere in the altitude range between 25 and 12 km depending on the exact altitudes of the PSCs in that spring (depends on the weather). Again your mechanism can’t explain this since it can’t explain why this process wouldn’t occur in the winter or why it would suddenly occur over that range of altitudes in such a short time.
“in October the Dobson number drops to 111, entirely due to the changes between 23 and 10km, that is the ‘hole’”
Yes, this is explained by the Polar Vortex forming and air parcels descending 10s of kilometers within it. What part of the concept are you struggling with?

As shown that is incapable of explaining what happens without the chemistry, what part of the concept of the chemical reaction of an extremely reactive species like O3 are you struggling with, other than your bias which causes you to refuse to accept any role for CFCs?
You haven’t demonstrated any “loss”, whereas I have clearly demonstrated the dynamical mechanisms of decent and low pressure. Excluding chemical mechanisms, what do you think the value of Dobson Units of total column ozone would be due to the naturally occurring Ozone “Hole” within the Polar Vortex?
As pointed out above you have failed to produce a workable mechanism to explain the changes in O3 concentration that are observed, hand waving about chaotic effects doesn’t cut it. The naturally occurring value would be about 300 Dobson as I’ve said before, just like it was in the 50’s and 60’s.

Phil.
March 18, 2014 6:51 am

justthefactswuwt says:
March 17, 2014 at 9:47 pm
Phil. says: March 17, 2014 at 7:11 am
“Clearly not, bearing in mind that you’re not very clear on what constitutes a ‘hole’.”
I am not going to play semantics with you about the definition of a “hole” and we aren’t using the arbitrary Ozone “hole” definition I noted above. As such, excluding condensation and chemical mechanisms, do you think there would be any areas of low concentrations of Ozone, Water Vapor, Nitrogen Oxide and/or Methane within the low pressure area and descending cold air in the Polar Vortex?”
Semantics are important since you are using an unusual definition so it’s important to be clear what you are referring to. Obviously if condensation and chemical mechanisms are excluded there would be no “areas of low concentrations of Ozone, Water Vapor, Nitrogen Oxide and/or Methane within the low pressure area and descending cold air in the Polar Vortex?” Just like there isn’t a Argon ‘hole’.
But since those species are condensible or reactive it is pointless to speculate on what they would be otherwise!
A CFC based Ozone “Hole” is speculation, the dynamical effects of the polar vortex can be readily observed.
The dynamical mechanism is incapable of explaining the depletion of O3, the polar vortex is a necessary condition for the formation of the ‘hole’ but it is not sufficient, without the chemistry and UV there is no depletion. All the species that take part in the reactions and the PSCs have been observed and measured so it is not speculation.
An appeal to consensus, it was just a matter of time. Let’s see what “all the scientists who study the phenomenon” think:
No just that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you’re unable to explain your own data!
You appear to ignore the parts of the cited works that contradict your own pet theory for example:
This mechanism is unable to explain the observed decrease without addition of an additional polar cap absorber. We speculate here that the PSC’s (assumed to last longer in this colder, weaker dynamics regime) mmy provide the required additional absorption. Finally, none of these arguments presented here preclude significant chemical effects. They do, however, strongly indicate that dynamical factors have been important in shaping the observed character of the phenomenon.”
In other words, necessary but not sufficient!
“and that the perturbed polar stratospheric chemistry associated with the ozone hole is isolated from the rest of the stratosphere until the vortex breaks up in late spring.
In the altitude region where chemical ozone loss from chlorine catalyzed chemistry occurs (below 600 K potential temperature) the 2002 ozone loss was similar to previous years up to the time of the major warming.
Can you admit that, “all the scientists who study the phenomenon” do not agree with your view that ozone “depletion” is cause by anthropogenic CFCs?
Well all the ones you cited agree that that is what causes O3 depletion in the Antarctic as I’ve shown above!
I don’t even know how to respond to this, all the images are from the same day, i.e. October 15th, 2013. Your narrative makes no sense, i.e. “starts off”, “takes about a month” ” Over the next month”, etc.
The citations you produced show that it takes months for the air packets to descend from ~50 km to the lower stratosphere, during that time the ozone concentration increases as shown by the data from multiple sources at multiple times. For example, the 1999 data I showed has the same profile above 25km in July as in October, your theory requires that low ozone air ‘magically’ transports through 30km without being noticed on the way!
The data you showed from S pole sondes on March 16, 2014 at 1:11 am shows that between Sept 1 and Oct 1 (in the years since 86) the O3 concentration between 20 and 10 km drops by about 100 Dobson, yet you also cite data that states that the air descends between 0.4 and 0.9 km in that time!. How could that small amount of displacement do that? Not over single days but whole months in different years. More magic!
The Polar Vortex can descend rapidly through the lower stratosphere and transport within it parcels of air with low ozone concentrations. Have you ever seen a vortex form in your sink or a tornado touching down. How long do they take to descend?
The papers you cited says in the Antarctic several months, in the lower stratosphere less than 1km/month.
“Again your mechanism can’t explain this since it can’t explain why this process wouldn’t occur in the winter”</e
I don’t understand, did you mistype something in there?

No I didn’t, the vortex exists in the winter yet there is no O3 depletion, that doesn’t start until sunrise, why does your mechanism not work until sunrise in the spring?

Phil.
March 19, 2014 9:04 am

justthefactswuwt says:
March 18, 2014 at 10:13 pm
Phil. says:March 18, 2014 at 6:51 am
“Semantics are important since you are using an unusual definition so it’s important to be clear what you are referring to.”
220 Dobson units is an arbitrary and unusual definition of a “hole”.

But since it’e the accepted definition in the field it was important to establish what your different terminology was.
“Obviously if condensation and chemical mechanisms are excluded there would be no “areas of low concentrations of Ozone, Water Vapor, Nitrogen Oxide and/or Methane within the low pressure area and descending cold air in the Polar Vortex?””
“Simultaneous global measurements of nitric acid (HNO3), water (H2O), chlorine monoxide (CIO), and ozone (O3) in the stratosphere have been obtained over complete annual cycles in both hemispheres by the Microwave Limb Sounder on the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite. A sizeable decrease in gas-phase HNO3 was evident in the lower stratospheric vortex over Antarctica by early June 1992, followed by a significant reduction in gas-phase H2O after mid-July. By mid-August, near the time of peak CIO, abundances of gas-phase HNO3 and H2O were extremely low. The concentrations of HNO3 and H2O over Antarctica remained depressed into November, well after temperatures in the lower stratosphere had risen above the evaporation threshold for polar stratospheric clouds, implying that denitrification and dehydration had occurred.”
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/267/5199/849.short

Thank you for providing that reference, I assume you haven’t read it since it completely supports my argument and totally contradicts yours, I suggest you read it you might learn something! For example as the first sentence says: “The severe depletion of stratospheric ozone over Antarctica (1) in late winter and early spring (the so-called Antarctic ozone “hole”) is now known (2) to be caused by chlorine chemistry.”
Also:
“First, in the low temperatures of polar winter, HNO3 condenses to form type I nitric acid trihydrate (NAT) polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs), which provide surfaces for the heterogeneous activation of chlorine. Second, photolysis of HNO3 vapor releases nitrogen dioxide (NO2), leading to chlorine deactivation through the formation of the reservoir species chlorine nitrate (CIONO2). Type II water ice PSCs, which form if temperature drop below the frost point, can also incorporate HNO3 vapor (6, 7). Removal of gas-phase HNO3 from the lower stratosphere, either temporarily through condensation or permanently through the sedimentation of type I or type II PSC particles (denitrification), reduces the availability of NO2 and allows chlorine to remain activated.”
Obviously you are not capable of absorbing new information. Based solely on the fact that there is a low pressure area within the polar vortex one would expect to find lower concentrations of atmospheric constituents within it.
No one wouldn’t, just because the pressure goes down doesn’t mean that the concentration goes down, ppm is a relative measure!
“Just like there isn’t a Argon ‘hole’.”
I have not seen any methodical measurements of Argon concentrations within the polar vortex. Can you cite any evidence to support your supposition?

There’s no mechanism for a reduction in Argon concentration, as the paper you cited shows the reductions in these species rely on the fact that they are condensible and reactive!
In your prior comment it was what “all the scientists who study the phenomenon”, but since I’ve demonstrated that to be erroneous now you “require extraordinary evidence”.
You certainly haven’t done so, as I pointed out (and you ignored) none of those citations supported your position, here are quotations from them again:
This mechanism is unable to explain the observed decrease without addition of an additional polar cap absorber. We speculate here that the PSC’s (assumed to last longer in this colder, weaker dynamics regime) mmy provide the required additional absorption. Finally, none of these arguments presented here preclude significant chemical effects. They do, however, strongly indicate that dynamical factors have been important in shaping the observed character of the phenomenon.”
In other words, necessary but not sufficient!
“and that the perturbed polar stratospheric chemistry associated with the ozone hole is isolated from the rest of the stratosphere until the vortex breaks up in late spring.
In the altitude region where chemical ozone loss from chlorine catalyzed chemistry occurs (below 600 K potential temperature) the 2002 ozone loss was similar to previous years up to the time of the major warming.
I am the one who cited and posted the parts in this thread. You could teach a course on ignoring the “parts of the cited works” that don’t fit your theory…
As shown above that is exactly what you have done and continue to do with all the papers cited!
Each of those papers talks about the chemical effects and condensation yet you ignore that and even claim that the papers somehow “do not agree with your (i.e. mine) view that ozone “depletion” is cause by anthropogenic CFCs”

Phil.
March 19, 2014 10:49 am

I like how you avoid difficult questions. I’ll just keep reasking them until you get around to answering them, i.e.:
Since “several studies (including Waugh and Randel 1999; Waugh et al. 1999; Karpetchko et al. 2005; Black and McDaniel 2007) have indicated a trend over the 1980s and 1990s toward a later vortex breakdown”;
http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/waugh+polvani-PlumbFestVolume-2010.pdf
wouldn’t one then expect lower Antarctic Ozone concentrations in October?

It’s not so much a difficult question as a strange non sequitur, I assumed you’d be glad not to be embarrassed by having it brought to everyones’ attention.
Since the ‘later vortex breakdown’ occurs in November and December I’m at a loss to understand why this might effect the O3 concentrations in October! Unless of course if you assume that the low O3 in October causes the later vortex breakdown? However that doesn’t appear to fit with your earlier remarks?

Phil.
March 19, 2014 12:34 pm

justthefactswuwt says:
March 18, 2014 at 10:13 pm
Phil. says:March 18, 2014 at 6:51 am
“The citations you produced show that it takes months for the air packets to descend from ~50 km to the lower stratosphere, during that time the ozone concentration increases as shown by the data from multiple sources at multiple times. For example, the 1999 data I showed has the same profile above 25km in July as in October, your theory requires that low ozone air ‘magically’ transports through 30km without being noticed on the way!”
It certainly wouldn’t be “noticed on the way” down by those ozonesonde balloons you cited, as the balloons burst at ~ 30 km; and even lower during Antarctic Winter,

The example you showed which burst at 30 km was in July, July is the winter, but 30-35km is adequate to show that the descending air contains a higher O3 concentration than the air below. So if your ‘magic’ air packets containing low O3 concentrations pass through 20-15 km the sondes would see them, but they don’t.
You are ignoring the low pressure due to centrifugal force within the vortex. You never answered my question, “Why do you think the Ozone “Hole” has the lowest concentration at its center?”
Why would you expect it to be anywhere else? Why do you think that the low pressure has anything to do with it? Low temperature perhaps because that would increase the likelihood of forming PSCs.
Those papers cited the movement of parcels of air, the Polar Vortex itself can form and descend more rapidly,
In the winter the Polar vortex has already descended to the altitude of ~15km and at that time and place the O3 concentration is at its annual maximum of about 16ppm. Later in the spring the O3 concentration there drops rapidly not because of the vortex but because of the return of sunlight (i.e. UV). Your mechanism contradicts this since it would expect earlier decay and no dependence on the sunlight.
Here’s your ‘difficult question’ which you have so far avoided answering, why is the maximum O3 concentration sustained in the winter surrounded by the vortex and the O3 depletion not take place until the spring?

Phil.
March 20, 2014 6:23 am

justthefactswuwt says:
March 19, 2014 at 7:46 pm
Phil. says: March 19, 2014 at 9:04 am
Thank you for providing that reference, I assume you haven’t read it since it completely supports my argument and totally contradicts yours, I suggest you read it you might learn something! For example as the first sentence says:
Yes, you’ve got me, I opened the paper, randomly selected some words and posted them. Sometimes I luck out and they are actually relevant…

Actually you just posted the abstract, no indication that you’d actually read it!
“The severe depletion of stratospheric ozone over Antarctica (1) in late winter and early spring (the so-called Antarctic ozone “hole”) is now known (2) to be caused by chlorine chemistry.”
As I’ve said now for the third time in this thread, “I don’t necessarily disagree that they “all involve reactive and condensible species.” However, similar to the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming narrative, which uses CO2 as a metaphorical boogie man to explain all manner of climatic and weather variability, the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Ozone “Hole” narrative uses CFCs to create fear and blame humans for processes that appear to be primarily natural, i.e.:

Actually you claimed that the ozone depletion can be explained with the ‘dynamical’ model alone, it can’t. The depletion of the O3 over the poles and elsewhere is not ‘primarily natural’.
Khwarismi:“With an isolated & poorly insolated polar vortex, you don’t need any chlorine.”
you: Yep, if there are a physical processes that adequately explain the existence of Ozone “Holes”, there is no need for extraneous CFC based chemical processes

Well there aren’t such processes, the Cl based chemistry is necessary.
“No one wouldn’t, just because the pressure goes down doesn’t mean that the concentration goes down, ppm is a relative measure!”
No, Mixing ratio ppm is relative to height, but doesn’t take into account low pressure with the vortex,

Of course it does, as the explanation you posted shows if you change the pressure of a packet of air the concentration in ppm does not change. That you don’t even understand something as basic as this undermines your credibility wrt the rest.
“Just like there isn’t a Argon ‘hole’.”
“I have not seen any methodical measurements of Argon concentrations within the polar vortex. Can you cite any evidence to support your supposition?”
There’s no mechanism for a reduction in Argon concentration, as the paper you cited shows the reductions in these species rely on the fact that they are condensible and reactive!
Meaning no, you cannot cite any evidence to support your supposition that “there isn’t a Argon ‘hole’”…

The measurements made to study the degree of depletion of O3 in the polar vortex use ‘passive tracers’ as comparators, these are relatively unreactive species that are collocated in the air packet with the O3 being studied. Clearly an inert gas would be an ideal ‘passive tracer’.
I won’t bother repeating my statement for a 4th time. My position is that the dynamical effects of the polar vortex are a significant, and potentially the primary cause of low concentrations of ozone within the polar vortex. Your position is that “ozone “depletion” is cause by anthropogenic CFCs”. Every reference I’ve provided in this thread supports my position. Here’s another for you to ignore:
As pointed out several times they don’t, they all point to chemistry as being the primary cause of the depletion of the ozone, the role of the polar vortex is to provide the isolation necessary to prevent mixing from the midlatitudes air and allow the temperatures to get low enough to form PSCs!
Note that even your most recent one which refers to the Arctic where the situation is much less well defined has the following caveat:
“These large January ozone loss rates seem to occur only during winters with stratospheric temperatures in January low enough to form a significant amount of PSCs.”

Phil.
March 20, 2014 7:41 am

justthefactswuwt says:
March 19, 2014 at 8:26 pm
Phil. says: March 19, 2014 at 10:49 am
“Since the ‘later vortex breakdown’ occurs in November and December I’m at a loss to understand why this might effect the O3 concentrations in October!”
Seriously? Breakdown is the end of process, i.e.:

Yes but as your citation says:
” While the northern polar vortex usually persists to March or April, the southern vortex persists an additional 1–2 months (November or December). In addition, temperatures remain quite cold (below 195 K) in the southern vortex to early October.
The persistent southern vortex has profound implications for polar ozone loss. Polar stratospheric clouds can form at temperatures below about 195 K. Chemical reactions on the surfaces of the particles that form these clouds convert chlorine compounds from inert forms into highly reactive species. As the sun rises over Antarctica in August and September, visible radiation provides the energy to drive chlorine and bromine catalytic reactions that rapidly destroy ozone. This rapid ozone destruction produces the Antarctic ozone hole.
So the depletion is occurring while the vortex is still strong! Note that according to the citation the minimum total ozone occurred on Sept 28th that year!
Thus a trend towards toward a later vortex breakdown, i.e. greater persistence;
But that’s not what you said, you said:
“wouldn’t one then expect lower Antarctic Ozone concentrations in October?”
Which i replied to in the negative and which your reference confirms:
“Extremely low ozone values did not persist as long as observed in some previous years, but increased such that the mean total ozone amount for the second half of October was about 150 DU.”

Phil.
March 20, 2014 8:15 am

justthefactswuwt says:
March 19, 2014 at 9:34 pm
Phil. says: March 19, 2014 at 12:34 pm
“The example you showed which burst at 30 km was in July, July is the winter”
No, the example I showed is from Summit Station, Greenland, (note the label above it) which, last time I checked, is in summer during July.
“but 30-35km is adequate to show that the descending air contains a higher O3 concentration than the air below.”
You are thus incorrect here, i.e. during Antarctic winter the balloons likely burst below ~30 km.

The published sonde data indicate sufficient dat to show whether the drop in concentration is due to descending low Ozone air from higher altitudes, the data shows that it does not.
So if your ‘magic’ air packets containing low O3 concentrations pass through 20-15 km the sondes would see them, but they don’t.
Again you are moving the goal posts, in your prior comment it was “your theory requires that low ozone air ‘magically’ transports through 30km without being noticed on the way!” and now you’ve lowered it to “concentrations pass through 20-15 km the sondes would see them”. I can’t even keep up…

That’s been apparent for some time, if you’d read what was written perhaps you’d do better!
You have claimed that the depletion in the in 20-15 km range is due to air from 55km which contains ~2.5ppm O3 turning up at 20km and that is why the concentration there drops to ~2ppm. However all the data shows that the intervening air contains higher concentrations of O3 than that, so where did it hide on the way down?
“Why would you expect it to be anywhere else? Why do you think that the low pressure has anything to do with it?”
Because if you put ozone in a centrifuge and turned it on, you would expect an ozone “hole” to form.

Absolutely not, don’t you know anything about gas dynamics?
One g acceleration is not enough to separate gases at atmospheric pressure as we know from our atmosphere. The vortex in the atmosphere does not come close to even that low level, the velocity field required for separation is many orders of magnitude than could be achieved in the atmosphere.
At no point have I stated that there is “no dependence on the sunlight”, my position is that there are numerous variables included in the formation of the ozone “hole” within the polar vortex, including parcels of air with low concentrations of ozone that begin descending in March and do not arrive at their lowest altitudes until the vortex breaks up in Spring, that in “late winter, parcels descend less, and the polar night jet moves downward, so there is less latitudinal mixing”, that the centrifugal force of the polar vortex creates a low pressure area within the polar vortex and that other chemical reactions may be involved…
Those stealthy ‘magic’ parcels of air that descend without being seen on the way!
And the mythical centrifugal force of the vortex.

bushbunny
March 20, 2014 10:51 pm

What are your temperatures right now. I hope it warms up for you soon.

%d bloggers like this: