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

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?”
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 confusion is all yours which is why you appear to think the loss of O3 occurs without chemical reaction
As I said above, “I don’t necessarily disagree that they “all involve reactive and condensible species.” However, it is probably similar to CO2, a minor variable and a kernel of truth, blown up to support an all encompassing narrative…
contrary to all the scientists who study the phenomenon and contrary to the data (even that you provide yourself).
An appeal to consensus, it was just a matter of time. Let’s see what “all the scientists who study the phenomenon” think:
“A hypothesis is advanced that natural dynamical processes might explain much of the observed late winter ozone decreases over Antarctica. For this to be the case, sometime after 1979 there must have been a substantial reduction of the wintertime planetary-scale disturbance activity in the Southern Hemisphere troposphere. The expected stratospheric response to such a natural process is to reduce wintertime polar ozone, prolong the life of the polar vortex, reduce the transport of ozone out of the middle stratosphere, and to increase the possibility of polar rising motion shortly after the return of the sun to high latitudes. All of these effects are in qualitative agreement with the observed ozone changes.”
“We advance a dynamical hypothesis as a possible explanation for the large late winter We advance a dynamical hypothesis as decreases in Antarctic ozone since about 1980. The hypothesis assumes there has been a significant decrease in the magnitude of Southern Hemisphere winter tropospheric forcing due to planetary-scale disturbances. Observed decreasing “trends” in October polar vortex temperature and September vertical component of EP flux are compatible with this hypothesis. A number of ozone transport responses to this decreased forcing are expected. The meridional slopes of ozone mixing isolines should be flatter, relative to isentropic surfaces, with lower values at the Pole. The decreased forcing should lead to a longer winter, as manifested by the polar vortex lasting longer. The systematic downward trend in ozone is expected in part to be due to the several years required for the polar lower stratosphere to come into equilibrium with the new reduced troposphere forcing. Reduced hemispheric-mean ozone amounts are expected because the efficiency of removal of ozone from the middle stratosphere is roughly proportional to the square of the eddy-forced diabatic meridional circulation. The nearly 10% drop in total ozone over a 2-week period in September mmy be due to a radiative-dynamical induced transient rising motion in response to the so-called “flywheel” effect. 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.”
https://gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/jdm8602.pdf
“Dramatic springtime depletions of ozone in polar regions require that polar stratospheric air has a high degree of dynamical isolation and extremely cold temperatures necessary for the formation of polar stratospheric clouds. Both of these conditions are produced within the stratospheric winter polar vortex. Recent aircraft missions have provided new information about the structure of polar vortices during winter and their relation to polar ozone depletions. The aircraft data show that gradients of potential vorticity and the concentration of conservative trace species are large at the transition from mid-latitude to polar air. The presence of such sharp gradients at the boundary of polar air implies that the inward mixing of heat and constituents is strongly inhibited 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. The overall size of the polar vortex thus limits the maximum areal coverage of the annual polar ozone depletions. Because it appears that this limit has not been reached for the Antarctic depletions, the possibility of future increases in the size of the Antarctic ozone hole is left open. In the Northern Hemisphere, the smaller vortex and the more restricted region of cold temperatures suggest that this region has a smaller theoretical maximum for column ozone depletion, about 40 percent of the currently observed change in the Antarctic ozone column in spring.”
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/251/4989/46.short
“The unusual dynamical situation over Europe in the winter 1991/92 caused an unusual behaviour of the total ozone. The strongest negative deviations from the long-term monthly means occured in January. A very cold middle stratosphere developed at the edge of the polar vortex above a warm anticyclonic block in the troposphere. The corresponding low temperature in the tropopause region was located just beneath the coldest air in the stratosphere.
A high positive correlation between the temperature and ozone partial pressure was derived at the edge of the polar stratospheric vortex for the tropopause region and for the middle stratosphere. The physical background was vertical motions changing temperature as well as the ozone content. That means unusually low ozone values can be expected when an elevated tropopause is combined with the adiabatically cooled end of the upwelling branch of an enhanced planetary wave in the middle stratosphere. It is shown that in February 1990, when extremely low total ozone was also observed over Scandinavia during a short anticyclonic blocking, this event was caused by the same process. However, during transient events the tropopause temperature is often anticorrelated with the middle stratospheric temperature (a tropospheric ridge reaching into the stratosphere has a cold high tropopause, but a warm middle stratosphere). The forced vertical motions result in extreme ozone columns only when they are in the same direction in both layers.
The enhanced wave activity was connected with a strong polar warming in the upper stratosphere in both winters. At 30 hPa in the middle stratosphere the warm center was situated over Eastern Siberia and the coldest part shifted towards Northern Europe.
The same situation was available in 11 cases during the fourteen years series of TOMS data (1979–1992), when total ozone reached values below 225 DU at the edge of the stratospheric polar vortex: enhanced wave activity in the middle stratosphere, polar warming in the upper stratosphere, shift of the coldest part of the polar vortex towards northern Europe over a cold high tropopause of a tropospheric anticyclone.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/93GL03020/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
“During the Airborne Antarctic Ozone Experiment (AAOE) localized rapid reductions in total ozone, called “miniholes”, were observed by the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) within the main ozone hole. Evolving too rapidly to be the result of chemical destruction, miniholes must be the result of atmospheric transport. An important question then is “Do miniholes represent large-scale transport of ozone poor air into the vortex?” In this paper we examine the genesis and evolution of miniholes, and we demonstrate by the calculation of air parcel trajectories that miniholes are not the result of irreversible transport of ozone-poor air into the polar vortex. We show instead that minihole genesis can be attributed, in large part, to synoptic-scale tropospherically forced reversible advection (both horizontal and vertical) of low-ozone air below the level of the main ozone depletion, resulting from the poleward penetration of an anticyclone below the main vortex. We then examine the implications of the disturbed flows associated with minihole formation. Employing differential infrared absorption laser (DIAL) data, Stratospheric Measurement (SAM) II retrievals, and United Kingdom Meteorological Office (UKMO) global analysis fields and trajectories, we highlight two aspects of minihole formation, which have important implications for both theories of photochemical ozone destruction and vortex isolation. We conclude that tropospheric forcing which reduces the ozone column through advection also forces the formation of Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSC)s (type I and II) throughout a substantial depth of atmosphere, resulting in a large portion of the air in the vortex being exposed to heterogeneous chemistry as it passes through individual quasi-stationary PSC regions. Finally we conclude that synoptic-scale transport associated with these events can lead to the exchange of vortex air with air from lower latitudes. The lower limit on the mass exchange over the period of ozone depletion is estimated to be 4% of the total depleted mass, with large uncertainties.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JD094iD09p11641/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
“The large-scale ozone distribution over the northern hemisphere undergoes strong fluctuations each winter on timescales of up to a few weeks. This is closely linked to changes in the stratospheric polar vortex, whose shape, intensity and location vary with time. Elliptical diagnostic parameters provide an empirical description of the daily character of the polar vortex. These parameters are used as an objective measure to define two characteristic wintertime vortex displacements, towards northern Europe and Canada, respectively. The large-scale structures in both the stratosphere and troposphere and the 3D ozone structures are determined for both vortex displacement scenarios. A linear ozone transport model shows that the contribution of horizontal ozone advection dominates locally in the middle stratosphere. Nevertheless, the largest contribution is due to vertical advection around the ozone layer maximum. The findings are in agreement with an EOF analysis which reveals significant general modes of ozone variability linked to polar vortex displacement and to phase-shifted large-scale tropospheric waves. When baroclinic waves travel through the regions of vortex-related ozone reduction, the combined effect is to produce transient synoptic-scale areas of exceptionally low ozone; namely dynamically induced strong ozone mini-holes.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0889.2000.00128.x/abstract
“A case study and statistical evaluations provide evidence that so-called ozone mini-hole events over Europe, where a rapid drop of total ozone is followed by complete recovery after a few days, are due to the northeastward motion of patches of air with low total ozone content. These patches appear to originate in subtropical latitudes. They correlate well with minima of potential vorticity near the tropopause. Contour dynamics is invoked to explain some basic features of the deformation and northward motion of the mini-holes as well as the related large-scale flow structures.”
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01029827
“The 2002 southern hemisphere winter was marked by unusually large wave activity, culminating with an unprecedented major warming in late September. This led to an ∼250 DU increase in column ozone near the pole as measured by the Polar Ozone and Aerosol Measurement (POAM) III instrument. POAM measurements of unusually high ozone mixing ratio throughout most of the stratosphere resulted primarily from air from outside the polar vortex being transported to the POAM measurement latitude. 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. The ozone loss diminished after this time (about 1 week earlier than usual), resulting in up to 20% less chemical ozone loss within the vortex than in previous winters. This corresponds to partial column ozone values below 600 K inside the polar vortex that were ∼25 DU larger in 2002 than in previous years.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL016899/abstract
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?
You appear to have a phobia about chemistry
No, I have a phobia about BS and the anthropogenic CFC Ozone “Hole” narrative has BS written all over it, i.e.:
Time – Feb 17, 1992
“What does it mean to redefine one’s relationship to the sky? What will it do to our children’s outlook on life we have to teach them to be afraid to look up?
–Senator Al Gore, Earth in the Balance
The world now knows that danger is shining through the sky. The evidence is overwhelming that the earth’s stratospheric ozone layer–our shield against the sun’s hazardous ultraviolet rays–is being eaten away by man-made chemicals far faster than any scientist had predicted. No longer is the threat just to our future; the threat is here and now. Ground zero is not just the South Pole anymore; ozone zone holes could soon open over heavily populated regions in the northern hemisphere as well as the southern. This unprecedented assault on the planet’s life-support system could have horrendous long-term effects on human health, animal life, the plants that support the food chain and just about every other strand that makes up the delicate web of nature. And it is too late to prevent the damage, which will worsen for years to come. The best the world can hope for is to stabilize ozone loss soon after the turn of the century.
If any doubters remain, their ranks dwindled last week. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, along with scientists from several institutions, announced startling findings from atmospheric studies done by a modified spy-plane and an orbiting satellite. As the two craft crossed the northern skies last month, they discovered record-high concentrations of chlorine monoxide (CIO), a chemical by-product of the chlorofluoro-carbons (CFCs) known to be the chief agents of ozone destruction.
Although the results were preliminary, they were so disturbing that NASA went public a month earlier than planned, well before the investigation could be completed. Previous studies had already shown that ozone levels have declined 4% to 8% over the northern hemisphere in the past decade. But the latest data imply that the ozone layer over some regions, including the northernmost parts of the U.S., Canada, Europe and Russia, could be temporarily depleted in the late winter and early spring by as much as 40%. That would be almost as bad as the 50% ozone loss recorded over Antarctica. If a huge northern ozone hole does not in fact open up in 1992, it could easily do so a year or two later. Says Michael Kurylo, NASA’s manager of upper-atmosphere research: “Everybody should be alarmed about this. It’s far worse than we thought.” http://faculty.washington.edu/djaffe/GEI/w3a.pdf
Strong sense of Déjà vu right?…
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.”
“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?”
Again, you are just picking a moment in time, i.e. in relation to transport the ppm on October 15th, 2013 at ~ 31 km are irrelevant to the ppm on October 15th at ~ 23, and in fact the Ozone “Hole” was split, demonstrating that the polar vortex was perturbed at ~31 km, potentially allowing surrounding ozone rich air to penetrate it, i.e.:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="450"] NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center [/caption]
In comparison, here is the Ozone “Hole” on September 15th, 2013 at ~ 31 km with a low of 5 ppm:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="450"] NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center [/caption]
Additionally, the ozone hole on October 15th, 2013 at ~ 23 km, which is above where “ozone depletion occurs primarily”, appears to show vigorous polar vortex at this altitude with a tight gradient around the Ozone “Hole”.
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="449"] NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center [/caption]
Why do you think the Ozone “Hole” has the lowest concentration at it’s center?
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.
Where ever you need the goal posts to be to validate your bias…
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.
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.
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!
Descending air within the vortex explains the existence of the “hole” and low pressure due to centrifugal force within the vortex explains the lowest concentrations in the center.
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.
You haven’t provided evidence to support the need for chemistry, but as I said above, I don’t discount it as a possible minor variable in the process…
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).
Can you provide any observational evidence that this is actually occurring?
Again your mechanism can’t explain this since it can’t explain why this process wouldn’t occur in the winter
I don’t understand, did you mistype something in there?
or why it would suddenly occur over that range of altitudes in such a short time.
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?
“in October the Dobson number drops to 111, entirely due to the changes between 23 and 10km, that is the ‘hole’”
So all of the other “holes” aren’t holes, but the one between “23 and 10km, that is the ‘hole’”, clearly…
As shown that is incapable of explaining what happens without the chemistry
You have not demonstrated this, the observations can be explained by simple dynamical processes.
other than your bias which causes you to refuse to accept any role for CFCs?
You have not demonstrated a need for CFCs to explain the observations.
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.
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 Ozone concentrations in October?

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”.
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
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.
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?
“No just that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you’re unable to explain your own data!”
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”. We should get you goal posts on wheels so that you can move them around more easily…
You appear to ignore the parts of the cited works
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…
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;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="449"] NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center [/caption]
and even lower during Antarctic Winter, i.e.:
“Polar ozonesonde profiles provide a detailed vertical measurement of ozone that can be made during low sun angle and dark time periods, when satellite ozone observations are limited. However, the cold, dark winter time will reduce the altitude burst elevation of the rubber weather balloons.”
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ozwv/ozsondes/
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!
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?”
Here is a good example within the Northern Polar Vortex on January 30th, 2014 at ~ 23 km:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="500"] NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
The papers you cited says in the Antarctic several months, in the lower stratosphere less than 1km/month.
Those papers cited the movement of parcels of air, the Polar Vortex itself can form and descend more rapidly, i.e.:
“In late winter, parcels descend less, and the polar night jet moves downward, so there is less latitudinal mixing. The degree of mixing in the lower stratosphere thus depends strongly on the position and evolution of the polar night jet.”
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/33809/1/94-0540.pdf
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?
So there are decreased concentrations, just no “depletion”? At least until “polar night jet moves downward”…
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?

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…
“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.:
“Three-dimensional simulations of total ozone are reported for the 1996–97 Arctic winter. The record low ozone values observed by satellite in late March are well reproduced by the chemistry-transport model. The comparison between the chemically integrated ozone and a passive tracer with identical initialization allows us to discriminate chemical changes from variations due to dynamical processes. In addition to a substantial total ozone chemical loss (60 to 120 Dobson Units), the simulation reveals an dynamically-induced reduction of ~70 DU also responsible for the ozone minimum observed in the Arctic in late March 1997.”
http://earthref.org/ERR/17838/
“Significant ozone loss in the Arctic Stratosphere was observed between mid February and mid March 1997, but the vortex average ozone loss rates determined in 1996/97 are lower than in 1992, 1995 and 1996. This supports the picture that the extreme low ozone values observed in 1997 can be attributed at least partly to dynamical effects. The ozone loss was mainly concentrated in the vortex core, coinciding with the lowest temperatures. A direct correlation between the determined ozone loss and temperature history of the air parcels was observed.”
http://epic.awi.de/2864/1/Sch9999l.pdf
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, i.e.;
“Mixing ratio, however, accounts for this fact that there are fewer molecules higher up, and reports the fractional composition of the air molecules everywhere. Here’s another way to think about mixing ratio: the cube we used to compute number density was rigid; it always contained 1 cubic meter of air. To compute mixing ratio, we will use an elastic balloon that always holds 1/20th of a mole of air. At the ground, this balloon will fill a volume of about one liter (10-3 m3). At 10 km, however, the balloon will have to be quite a bit larger (about 4 times as large, in fact) to contain the same number of molecules. In each case, the ozone mixing ratio will be the fractional number of the total number of “air” molecules in our balloon that are ozone molecules. If we were to fill our balloon at the ground with a mixture of one part ozone to nine parts air (an ozone mixing ratio of 0.10), seal it, then slowly carry it upward to 10 km, the balloon would expand to a volume about four times as large as it occupied at the ground. Nevertheless, the balloon would still contain exactly the same ozone mixing ratio since we’ve neither let gas into nor out of the balloon. Ozone mixing ratio is therefore said to be conserved following air parcel motion. This conservative characteristic makes mixing ratio an excellent tool for diagnosing atmospheric motion.”
http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/~lizsmith/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_3/3_2.htm
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’”…
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”
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:
“Current stratospheric chemical model simulations underestimate substantially the large ozone loss rates that are derived for the Arctic from ozonesondes for January of some years. Until now, no explanation for this discrepancy has been found. Here, we examine the influence of intrusions of mid-latitude air into the polar vortex on these ozone loss estimates.”
“We have shown that intrusions of mid-latitude air into the polar vortex introduce a systematic offset of vortex average ozone mixing ratios. Estimates of ozone loss rates are influenced by this effect. In January 1992, the resulting ozone depletion rate bias due to intrusions was estimated to be about 11 to 14 ppb per day for the vortex average method. Since the large-scale intrusions reached horizontal dimensions below the Match radius, their potential influence on the Match
results was investigated. The model simulations show that these intrusions should not influence the ozone depletion rate derived from the Match analysis, if the usual trajectory selection criteria are applied. Furthermore, it was shown for January 1992 that the published 1σ uncertainty on the basis of 19 matches is underestimated by a factor of 2 due to the sparse sampling of the
polar vortex and the ozone variability within the polar vortex. However, even with this larger uncertainty, the published discrepancy between Match deduced ozone loss rates and those derived from model simulations cannot be explained.”
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/3/395/2003/acp-3-395-2003.pdf

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.
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…
“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?
Because if you put ozone in a centrifuge and turned it on, you would expect an ozone “hole” to form.
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?
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…

Phil. says: March 20, 2014 at 6:23 am
Actually you just posted the abstract, no indication that you’d actually read it!
It seems like you only made it through their intro, as their actual findings point towards significant dynamical influences, i.e.:
“There are no MLS measurements over Antarctica from mid-September through the end of October (20). By the time southviewing resumes on 1 November, chlorine over Antarctica has been largely deactivated. However, the 03 deficit that developed in September (4, 11, 12) persists. The deficits in gas-phase HNO3 and H20 also persist, with mixing ratio values less than 6
ppbv and less than 3 ppmv, respectively, throughout most of the vortex. Similar H20 values were measured by the UARS Halogen Occultation Experiment (HALOE) in mid-October 1992 (29). The strong PV gradient indicates that the vortex is still intact, inhibiting mixing between polar and midlatitude air. Lower stratospheric temperatures rose above the NAT PSC formation threshold the last week in September (30). The fact that gas-phase HNO3 and H20 values remain depressed long after the last PSCs would have been expected to evaporate strongly implies that irreversible removal (denitrification and dehydration) occurred at this level.”
It implies that the polar vortex is the dog and atmospheric chemical constituents are the tail. Here are the associated images:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="500"] Interhemispheric Differences in Polar Stratospheric HNO3, H20, C10, and 03 – Santee, et al.[/caption]
Actually you claimed that the ozone depletion can be explained with the ‘dynamical’ model alone, it can’t.
I don’t disagree that chemical could be involved, but you have not presented any observations that cannot be explained by simple dynamical processes. If and when you can present observations that cannot be explained by dynamical processes alone, then I’ll consider what other processes might be involved.
The depletion of the O3 over the poles and elsewhere is not ‘primarily natural’.
Prove it…
Well there aren’t such processes, the Cl based chemistry is necessary.
It’s not getting any more compelling with repetition…
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.
No, NOAA’s Ozone Mixing Ratio Algorithm is as follows (pay close attention to that second paragraph):
“2. Data Analysis Algorithm:
The process of SMOBA starts from the orbital information of the daily measurements of ozone mixing ratio and total column ozone that are obtained from the NOAA polar orbiting satellite, currently NOAA-14. The retrieved SBUV/2 ozone data include 19 levels of mixing ratio from 0.3 hPa to 100 hPa and total column ozone. Layer ozone amounts are also included for 12 discrete layers from the surface to ~60 km, but the vertical resolution is very coarse in the troposphere (only 2 layers).The input data are arranged along satellite orbit tracks, over the sun-lit portion of the earth. We have performed objective analysis from the orbital data to a global, 2.5 x 2.5 degree latitude-longitude grid by a commonly used successive correction method (SCM) (Daley, 1991). The output includes ozone mixing ratio at 24 pressure levels (0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.7, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50, 70, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300 hPa) where we have added the 5 levels (300, 250, 200, 150, and 0.2 hPa) to the 19 level input mixing ratio, which are derived from ozone amount data in layers 2 (256 – 128 hPa), 3 (128 – 64 hPa) and 12 (0.25 – 0.12 hPa) respectively. We also assume a uniform ozone mixing ratio from 300 hPa to 1000 hPa, derived from the ozone amount in the lowest layer (1000 – 256 hPa). The total ozone is directly from the retrieved data, which is the sum of 12 layer ozone amounts. Note that due to the different vertical resolution of the raw data, the reliability of ozone mixing ratio is best above 30 hPa, good between 100 hPa and 30 hPa, and marginal below 100 hPa. We note, however, that the lower stratospheric ozone retrievals are guided by climatology used in the ozone retrieval algorithm, and corrected by the measured layer ozone amounts. The uniform tropospheric mixing ratio also captures the main feature shown in ozone sonde measurements.
Because the SBUV/2 algorithm is based on the sunlight absorbed and reflected by the atmosphere (including ozone), there are no data in polar night. To fill in the polar night gap, we use NOAA TOVS total ozone derived from infrared measurements as the auxiliary information. However, TOVS does not measure vertical ozone profiles. From other satellite data such as UARS MLS, CLAES, ISAMS and HALOE, we have determined that the shapes of ozone vertical profiles are similar in polar latitudes to those at high mid-latitudes. Therefore, we assume polar night ozone mixing ratio to be such that its shape is the same as that of SBUV/2 ozone at the boundary of the polar night, and the integrated polar total column ozone is equal to TOVS measurement. As will be shown, this assumption is a reasonable approximation when the polar night gap is not too large. Since TOVS total ozone is slightly different from SBUV/2 total ozone (~5% at the boundary of polar night), a linear adjustment is applied to the polar ozone so that the filled data joint smoothly at the boundary . This procedure is the so-called blended data analysis, which combines the two data sources to obtain more complete information, on the basis of physical and instrumental understanding. In operation, in case TOVS ozone is not available for any reason, we simply use extrapolation to fill in the data gap. Therefore, there are no gaps in the data analysis files.”
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/SMOBA/smoba_doc.shtml
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’.
Clearly, so then show us the observational evidence that “there isn’t a Argon ‘hole’”.
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!
That seem like progress for you, earlier you wrote that “The dynamical mechanism is incapable of explaining the depletion of O3” and now you note that the references “all point to chemistry as being the primary cause of the depletion of the ozone”. The real question here is whether anthropogenic CFCs are the primary cause, and you certainly haven’t presented evidence to support that.
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.”
Correlation is not causation. The reason that “stratospheric temperatures in January” get “low enough to form a significant amount of PSCs”, is that cold air, with low ozone concentrations, descends from the lower mesosphere and upper stratosphere, resulting in cold air, low ozone and Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSCs) within the ozone “hole”.