Is the atmospheric ozone recovery real, or just for scoring political points?

To coincide with the upcoming “World Ozone Day 2014″ declared by the U.N. for September 16th, we have some “feel good” news coming out on the 25th anniversary of the Montreal Protocol

ozone_dayOn September 10, an article written by Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press trumpeted a claim of good news with the headline: “Scientists say the ozone layer is recovering.” The basis for Borenstein’s headline is a statistical analysis:

For the first time in 35 years, scientists were able to confirm a statistically significant and sustained increase in stratospheric ozone, which shields the planet from solar radiation that causes skin cancer, crop damage and other problems.

From 2000 to 2013, ozone levels climbed 4 percent in the key mid-northern latitudes at about 30 miles up, said NASA scientist Paul A. Newman.

Later in the article, Borenstein cites this news as “one of the great success stories of international collective action in addressing a global environmental change phenomenon.”

Is it really?

Antarctica_ozone_map_09-09-14

Above: The latest false-color view of total ozone over the Antarctic pole for Sep9, 2014. The purple and blue colors are where there is the least ozone, and the yellows and reds are where there is more ozone. (Source: NASA Ozone Hole Watch) Click to enlarge

Like many superficial claims made in the mainstream media, this one reveals a different story if you scratch ever so slightly below the surface. First, a bit of background on ozone depletion: ozone reduction in the upper atmosphere is said to be caused by a chemical interaction with the inert refrigerant chemical known as “chlorofluorocarbons,” or CFCs, which is found in the piping of millions of refrigerators and air conditioners worldwide. The loss of the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere will lead to normally reflected high-energy ultraviolet light reaching the Earth’s surface, causing more sunburns and skin cancer, disruption of ecosystems such as marine plankton and algae, and other photosynthetic biomass, with a large ripple effect.

The solution was to ban certain CFCs that were said to cause a loss of upper atmospheric ozone. Borenstein’s supposed “success story” hinges on a 1987 UN resolution called the Montreal Protocol:

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was designed to reduce the production and consumption of ozone depleting substances in order to reduce their abundance in the atmosphere, and thereby protect the earth’s fragile ozone Layer. (Source)

The Montreal Protocol certainly seems rooted with good intentions. Yet, as with so many other things we see from the UN, the actual implementation — once the cocktail parties, the speeches, and the self-congratulatory claims are over — doesn’t quite fit the original intent or the claims of success. Just a few months ago on Dec 11, 2013, NASA issued a press release containing this statement:

More than 20 years after the Montreal Protocol agreement limited human emissions of ozone-depleting substances, satellites have monitored the area of the annual ozone hole and watched it essentially stabilize, ceasing to grow substantially larger. However, two new studies show that signs of recovery are not yet present, and that temperature and winds are still driving any annual changes in ozone hole size. 

“We are still in the period where small changes in chlorine do not affect the area of the ozone hole, which is why it’s too soon to say the ozone hole is recovering,” Strahan said. “We’re going into a period of large variability and there will be bumps in the road before we can identify a clear recovery.” (Source)

Within the span of nine months, NASA issued statements claiming of atmospheric ozone that “signs of recovery are not yet present,” there is “large variability,” it is “stabilizing,” and now, that the ozone problem is “recovering”.

So which is it? The answer may lie in the relevant political science, not the atmospheric. The Montreal Protocol is 25 years old this year, having been entered into force in 1989. When such milestones are reached, there is always pressure to make some statement that the work of the UN actually made some sort of difference.

Importantly, neither China nor India was willing to or required to participate in the Montreal Protocol. That left them free to do whatever they wanted, and that is exactly what they did. In February 1989, the New Scientist reported that China had a plan in place to boost their production of CFCs up to 10 times the present level. And, it wasn’t until the summer of 2007 that China actually got around to banning the production of ozone-depleting CFCs. So there has not been much in the way of reduction from China. In fact, as reported by Walter Russell Mead in The American Interest, China used the UN-sponsored Kyoto Protocol to run an emission credits scam operation:

It appears that Chinese coolant manufacturers have been producing an excess of a harmful greenhouse chemical in order to dispose of it responsibly under the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). By using incinerators to cleanly burn off the chemical, HFC-23, these manufacturers were earning emission credits that they would in turn sell to developed world companies in order to help them hit their targets under the Kyoto Protocol.

This chicanery didn’t go unnoticed, however: the European Emissions Trading Scheme banned trade in those credits in May, and other working climate exchanges have said they’re going to follow suit. A very lucrative business for Chinese manufacturers is drying up very quickly, and they’re not taking it sitting down.

The EIA said an undercover investigation had shown that most of China’s non-CDM facilities were emitting HFC-23 already.“If all of these facilities [under the CDM] join China’s non-CDM and vent their HFC-23, they will set off a climate bomb emitting more than 2bn tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions by 2020,” it said.

Thanks (in part) to financial incentives to destroy CFCs under the Kyoto Protocol, there are even more CFCs in existence (in China) than there were before. This might explain why, more than 15 years after the Montreal Protocol was put into effect by the UN, NASA reported in 2006 that the ozone hole over the Antarctic reached a record size:

“From September 21 to 30, [2006], the average area of the ozone hole was the largest ever observed, at 10.6 million square miles,” said Paul Newman, atmospheric scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. Newman was joined by other scientists from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in reporting that the ozone hole over the polar region of the Southern Hemisphere broke records for both area and depth in 2006. A little over a week after the ozone hole sustained its new record high for average area, satellites and balloon-based instruments recorded the lowest concentrations of ozone ever observed over Antarctica, making the ozone hole the deepest it had ever been. Source: NASA Earth Observatory

Antarctic_ozone_meteorology_annual

Above: Antarctic ozone levels since 1979. The record was in 2006 as shown in red. Source: NASA Ozone Watch

Or does it? Adding to the madness, now there is scientific uncertainty about the actual extent of the ozone problem as it relates to CFCs. More recent science has shown that the sensitivity of the Earth’s ozone layer might very well be 10 times less than was originally believed back in the 1980s when the alarm was first sounded. As reported in the prestigious science journal Nature, Markus Rex, an atmospheric scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, found that the breakdown rate of a crucial CFC-related molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2), is almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate:

“This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear. (Emphasis added)

One of the biggest issues with the Antarctic ozone hole is that it is not a year-round event. It peaks at its worst during the long, dark Antarctic winter. Observations show that it is highly correlated to weather patterns — more so than to actual atmospheric CFC content. The cold, the lack of sunlight to form new ozone, and the circular wind pattern in Antarctica all conspire to reduce ozone without any help from CFCs at all. Fellow of the American Meteorological Society and co-founder of the Weather Channel Joe D’Aleo says he thinks that the Antarctic ozone hole might simply be a permanent feature of the Earth that we only discovered when we went looking for the posited ozone reduction:

The data shows a lot of variability and no real trends after the Montreal protocol banned CFCs. The models had predicted a partial recovery by now. Later scientists adjusted their models and pronounced the recovery would take decades. It may be just another failed alarmist prediction.

Remember we first found the ozone hole when satellites that measure ozone were first available and processed (1985). It is very likely to have been there forever, varying year to year and decade to decade as solar cycles and volcanic events affected high latitude winter vortex strength. (Source)

With the claim in the AP story of “statistically significant” success being just a tiny improvement at higher latitudes, about 4%, while the Antarctic ozone hole continues mostly unabated, one wonders if the UN claim of success is nothing more than taking credit for simple natural variability.

The ozone hole may be a process that has been around for ages, which we only were able to notice as a result of recent technology.


 

This article originally appeared as a special report to PJMedia

Added: Ozone hole animation – watch the ozone hole form when Antarctic winter sets in.

161 thoughts on “Is the atmospheric ozone recovery real, or just for scoring political points?

  1. “…one wonders if the UN claim of success is nothing more than taking credit for simple natural variability.”

    well, someone has to….
    /sarc

    • Not only someone has to “take credit”. There needs to be a huge mob that actually believes them. The entire affair is a remarkable achievement.

  2. Several years ago I asked that very question of Cambridge university and the max plank institute

    ‘ how do we know whether the ozone hole hasn’t always been there and it’s just that prior to the 1950’s we didn’t have the means to measure it?’

    Both replied that it was possible it had always been there but they didn’t think so and didn’t have the equipment to be able to resolve the matter either way

    Tonyb

    • The question I have is one of how much CCl4 is produce by the world’s oceans in methane seeps. CH4+4Cl2 -> CCl4+4HCl . Granted the Cl in the oceans is in an ion form for the most part, but there is a bit of pressure down there at the bottom where the seeps are. Does anyone know if this process has been observed in the wild?

    • Tony – That question was asked by the atmospheric scientists I worked with in the late ’80s as well. It received the same treatment as negative (honest) questions about the Hockey Stick did 15 years later.

    • I asked the same question way back then, but accepted the “consensus” anyway.

      Much older and wiser now (I hope)

      • Jim and Mango.

        Thanks for those replies. Just because you see something for the first time doesn’t necessarily mean its unprecedented, merely that it might never have been measured before.

        Mind you I like the honest answer ‘We don’t know.’ Its a pity those who reconstructed 1000 year old temperatures using novel proxies couldn’t admit to this huge area of doubt.

        tonyb

    • Tonyb,
      You are not the only one to ask this very same question .

      Here is the good Dr. before he really became obsessed with co2.

      Abstract
      Dr. James Hansen et. al – PNAS – August 15, 2000
      Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario
      A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change….
      http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.long

      Therefore the pause has been driven largely by co2. LOL. Comedic climate calamity.

    • In 1968, Gordon Charles Dobson published ” 40 Years Research on Atmospheric Ozone at Oxford-A History”. In this review article he mentions an interesting scientific discovery made in 1956/1957 at Halley Bay, Antarctica.. His team had noted a “Relative ozone lack” which occurred every winter, lasted about 3 months, then broke down at the beginning of summer. What was rediscovered and titled the “Ozone Hole” in the 1980s, was thought by Dobson to be due to 3 factors. Firstlyduring the long Antarctic winter there is no sun to produce ozone {ozone is produced by the sunshine interacting with our atmosphere] Secondly, the westerly winds that blow constantly through winter produce a polar vortex, which extends up through the stratosphere and stops infilling. Thirdly, their experiments led him to conclude that the colder the prevailing temperature in Antarctica, the larger the disparity in ozone. Look up the article on line. With the continuing yearly growth of Antarctic ice, we can expect record ozone hole size again this southern spring. PS, the only CFCs in Antarctica in the late 1950s wer being produced by MtErebus

    • If you recall, some time ago (I don’t recall exactly when), there was a prediction by NASA(?) with great fanfare that a second hole was going to open in the north. Never happened. Haven’t heard bupkis about that since.

      • Because the “hole” is a totally natural occurrence. I can almost see the magnetic fields and ions at play. I postulate that it has always been there.

      • Ozone is not a stable component of the atmosphere. It is manufactured by a sunlight. Over the poles there is no sunlight in winter.

      • The ozone hole is actually part of the polar vortex or magnetospheric footprint. The footprint actually comes down through the ozone hole… It has nothing to do with CFC’s or global warming.

    • It’s simple: CFCs are heavy. They fall from the industrialized Northern hemisphere down to the less industrialized southern hemisphere, down to the south pole, then they float up into the atmosphere and kill all the O3.

      • System,
        Adore!
        +1
        – PS might you – possibly – have missed the
        /sarc
        – that I have learnt is required for all on here if not utterly pellucid.

        Auto

      • Sorry Auto, should have used /sarc

        But seriously, I haven’t seen any good explanation for Northern Hemisphere CFCs affecting the south pole, except for some special type of cloud hovering over the Antarctic eating ozone, or a simple answer, that I like, being that the earth (and so the atmosphere) is possibly very slightly pear-shaped, with the bottom of the pear at the south pole.

        Ozone is continually produced (indirectly) by UV-C hitting O2 molecules. The angle of incidence of the sun’s UV-C rays at the equator is close to 90 degrees, so lots of ozone production. The angle of incidence at the poles is shallower, so less ozone created. With a pear shape, even greater angle of incidence at the bottom of the pear (south pole) than at the top, so a wider hole is left over the south pole. This explanation fits in well when you consider that the size of the hole varies seasonally when the sun changes its angle of incidence over the seasons.

        Also, they talk about a hole or area of depletion, as if something is un-naturally destroying ozone. Ozone naturally decays into O2 over time, and thankfully is replenished every day by the sun. Rather than “depletion layer”, could use “area of reduced production”.

  3. The Ozone Hole. Isn’t that what Al Gore was up in arms about before he started waving the Hockey Stick around?

  4. Circular wind pattern and lack of sunlight in winter…aided (perhaps in a small way) by O2’s magnetism attracting it to the pole and the diamagnetism (push away from magnetic fields) of all the other atmospheric gases (ozone hole, CO2 hole, CH4 whole, N2 hole, noble gases hole). Note the ‘roll collar’ O3 concentration band around the hole.

  5. What NASA was saying just last December:

    “NASA Reveals New Results From Inside the Ozone Hole
    December 11, 2013

    NASA scientists have revealed the inner workings of the ozone hole that forms annually over Antarctica and found that declining chlorine in the stratosphere has not yet caused a recovery of the ozone hole.

    More than 20 years after the Montreal Protocol agreement limited human emissions of ozone-depleting substances, satellites have monitored the area of the annual ozone hole and watched it essentially stabilize, ceasing to grow substantially larger. However, two new studies show that signs of recovery are not yet present, and that temperature and winds are still driving any annual changes in ozone hole size.”

    http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/new-results-from-inside-the-ozone-hole/#.VBNVCtm9LCS

    What has changed?

    • Since 1960, the amount of UV from the Sun has decreased. Just don’t look at peaks, but look at the area under the curve!

      Now, the 10.7 cm radio flux is caused by the Solar UV reaching the upper atmosphere. There, the UV it is absorbed and then re-radiated as lower frequency energy [electron excitation/relaxation]. The 10.7cm flux is an indication of the thermal energy in the upper atmosphere!

      Today the “area under the curve” is 1/10th of the amounts in 1960. I expect the Ozone layer to shrink, and the Antarctic Ozone hole to expand. The Arctic will start showing mini-holes during winter.

      This is the only thing that has changed: if you exclude the “reduction in fluorocarbons, increase in CO2, and the ‘climate warming spewing'”

      • I think the sun’s mostly unchanging TSI is a poor measure of the effects the sun has on the earth. The way the spectrum changes is likely to have impacts far beyond the small total energy changes. O3 production change due to UV change is a likely candidate IMO.

      • jlurtz said:

        Now, the 10.7 cm radio flux is caused by the Solar UV reaching the upper atmosphere. There, the UV it is absorbed and then re-radiated as lower frequency energy [electron excitation/relaxation]. The 10.7cm flux is an indication of the thermal energy in the upper atmosphere!

        No, that’s nonsense. The 10.7cm (2800MHz) radio flux is radiated from magnetically active regions on the Sun itself, correlated with sunspot activity. It is not caused by “UV re-radiation”.

      • The ozone is more like a rough sea than a layer. It actually has columns that go through it like a plasma formation. It could be considered part of the double layer structure of earths atmosphere.

    • That’s nothing. Mine does it every morning! He’s even smart enough to stay inside when it’s raining.

  6. Has anyone written the “social history” of the ozone hole controversy? Its parallel with global warming alarmism is quite telling, I think. And in the case of the ozone hole, the Nobel Prize was for actual science!

    • But there’s one big difference that indicates things seem to be getting better…

      “More recent science has shown that the sensitivity of the Earth’s ozone layer might very well be 10 times less than was originally believed back in the 1980s when the alarm was first sounded.”

      At least with CAGW, they are only off by 2 to 4 times on the difference between the consensus science and reality.

      /sarc

      Bruce

      • What is it that Steve Martin said about the ozone layer, what is directly above it and why we must save it?

    • Exactly, It is not a hole, it is a concentration gradient. Calling it a hole gives the impression that there is no ozone in the blue spot seen in the video above. But that is not true, The ozone concentration in the blue zone it is not zero, it is just lower than in the green zone. Sadly, there is no info in the video about what the colors mean. It might be around 140 dobson units for the blue zone and 250 for the green, but I am just guessing.

      • The green color in those NASA graphs are around the 400 DU. Normally, 250 DU are light blue. And dark blue is around 150-120 DU. But those low values are only seen during the Antarctic spring and go away at late spring. But over continents in moderate latitudes (ie: France, Germany, etc) the ozone concentratrion can be as high as 500 DU. For example, on June 6th, 2005 oozne values over Europe were these:

  7. It is still my thinking that the ozone hole plays a role in allowing heat energy to vent into space.

  8. This is all about politics and preserving the jobs of all those who study ozone and legislate etc. there were moves to get rid of the UN Ozone Secretariat, as common sense suggested that it was no longer required, as ozone depleting substances were phased out 25 years ago. However it takes a bit more than common sense to stop such a UN gravy train.

    Given that Ozone has not recovered, it is remarkable that we have all survived!

    However my understanding is that HFC 23 is not ozone depleting so China can produce as much of this as it likes without affecting atmospheric ozone.

  9. In other words…

    Maybe the ozone hole has been around for thousands of years. Or maybe it’s new. Maybe it was caused by CHC’s and maybe it wasn’t. It might be getting bigger, smaller, or staying the same. We’re not quite sure. But it’s a climate catastrophe and you’re all going to die unless you hand over your money to support our causes.

  10. “The loss of the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere will lead to normally reflected high-energy ultraviolet light reaching the Earth’s surface, causing more sunburns and skin cancer…”
    ————
    I guess I would worry about that if I lived at the South Pole.

    • Mark, I to have thought with less than 2000 people living/working in Antarctica, wouldn’t have been cheaper to just get them some UVA sunscreen to protect them while they sunbath in the middle of winter?

    • Mark the rays of the sun would have to turn at about 90 degrees to reach the antarctic as they are passing the pole at a tangent to the earth. Just think about it, nowhere on earth will receive the sun’s rays through the ozone hole.
      John

      • Sunlight? In Antarctica? in July? I wouldn’t worry about.it. Why is it that antarctic ozone levels are only measured in July when there is nearly no sunlight present to disassociate O2 molecules and create ozone?

      • Good point, I meant that the UV would have to turn at 90 degrees to reach the antarctic as it is absorbed by the ozone in the more direct route. UV does not reach the earth through the ozone hole! The ozone is supposed to protect us from that UV is it not?

  11. It appears to me that there is an error in the penultimate paragraph. I believe the change shown below is the correct situation.

    With the claim in the AP story of “statistically significant” success being just a tiny improvement at higher lower latitudes, about 4%,

  12. Shane Steele wrote:

    Has anyone written the “social history” of the ozone hole controversy? Its parallel with global warming alarmism is quite telling, I think. And in the case of the ozone hole, the Nobel Prize was for actual science!
    ———–

    Shane, I’m not even sure about that. Compare the social history of the ozone “holes” to the existence of satellite data for stratospheric ozone. A perfect match!

    How valid is the premise that there haven’t been ozone “holes” at the poles since the Earth tilted on its access?

  13. Er, access = axis.

    [Well, the holes at both ends must be the polar access points…. Else tales about the polar tilt could not be spun. 8<) .mod]

  14. Gotta admit I’m confused. The ozone hole is over Antarctica. This article is discussing a 4 percent increase in ozone levels in mid-NORTHERN latitudes. How do these two relate? Where exactly are these mid-northern latitudes?

    I understand that there is a smaller hole over the Arctic and that both holes occur during their respective winters. So is this 4 percent increase also related to seasonal fluctuations? Because I never quite understood how a hole that formed at high latitudes in winter could cause additional skin cancers. Winter at high latitudes has less sun due to axial tilt and who goes out without clothes on in winter at high latitudes to get exposed the sun anyway?

    • It’s too bad that Borenstein’s article is ostentatiously illustrated with diagrams of the Antarctic Ozone “Hole”, because, as Taphonomic points out, the “ozone hole” isn’t the big news. Here’s the money quote:

      “From 2000 to 2013, ozone levels climbed 4 percent in the key mid-northern latitudes at about 30 miles up, said NASA scientist Paul A. Newman.”

      With regard to the “hole”, Borenstein’s article confirms PJ Media’s point about its persistence:

      “The ozone layer is still far from healed. The long-lasting, ozone-eating chemicals still lingering in the atmosphere create a yearly fall ozone hole above the extreme Southern Hemisphere, and the hole hasn’t closed up. Also, the ozone layer is still about 6 percent thinner than in 1980, by Newman’s calculations.”

      Note, however, that the small “increase” in stratospheric ozone is described as “statistically significant”. After reading WUWT and Climate Audit for years, that phrase now pegs my BS-o-meter. Looking at the bar graph of ozone levels, I see 2000 was a local minimum (cherry-picked starting point?), 2002 was higher than 2013 (Outlier! Heretic! Excommunicate!), and 2007-8 was a two-year “recovery” from the low level of 2006, followed by another decline. Unfortunately statistics makes my head hurt, so perhaps someone else can take a closer look at the real statistical significance of this “recovery”.

  15. I’ve always found the ozone hole thing ridiculous. The ozone hole is only really present in Antarctica during the southern hemisphere winter. i.e. total absence of sunlight. How am I going to get radiation-caused cancer and mutations from the sun when the sun just isn’t there? Even in the summer, the sun is very weak at the poles. Does it really make a difference?

  16. Well done.
    I searched WUWT for ozone and there are many posts tagged as such. The first one likely before I started reading in 2008.
    One of my first comments was about the ocean being a source of halogen compounds.

  17. The loss of the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere will lead to normally reflected high-energy ultraviolet light reaching the Earth’s surface, causing more sunburns and skin cancer, disruption of ecosystems such as marine plankton and algae, and other photosynthetic biomass, with a large ripple effect.

    One of the biggest issues with the Antarctic ozone hole is that it is not a year-round event. It peaks at its worst during the long, dark Antarctic winter.

    I see. Lack of light, including high-energy ultraviolet light causes cancer during dark Antarctic winters due to the ozone hole in a region where no one lives. It is certainly worse than we thought.

    BTW, ozone never reflects UV, it absorbs it.

  18. Ooh, this is just a training run for them taking credit for breaking the back of AGW, once the temperatures start falling. “We did it! We beat global warming! Give us more money if you want to keep this problem solved!”. Retch.

    • Exactly. These charlatans would be crowing about “solving” global warming if they had been able to pull off their Copenhagen plan.
      Amazing how easy solving non problems are,they even use the same solution every time.
      Higher tax bite and more regulation.

    • Perhaps we should popularize the idea that they’re responsible for brutal winters … ?

      It might hasten the endgame.

  19. Take what nature does naturally and blame it on Man. Then some men will claim a moral responsibility to control Man.

    • The “Ozone Hole” didn’t stick against the wall very well.
      The whole “Climate Whatever’ appears to be pealing off.

  20. I’m surprised by how you failed to highlight the biggest point of the story. That the recovery of the ozone hole means CO2 restrictions are a good idea.

  21. Back when the ozone scam was at it’s peak, we didn’t have any means of measuring ozone directly. The only method was indirect, by measuring UV levels at the surface. At the time it was assumed that the sun was constant, therefore any changes in surface UV levels must be caused by changes in the ozone layer.
    It wasn’t until years later when we put up a satellite to monitor the sun that we found out that the sun’s UV levels varied by as much as 10% over the course of a solar cycle.

    BTW, did I mention that during the mid 80’s the sun was building up to a solar max.
    The whole scare was based on blaming man for what the sun was doing.

  22. Can’t forget that the patent for CFC’s was about to run out. However, the new, govt approved chemical has about 50 years left on it’s patent.

    • No patents run for 50 years. Seriously, you should do some elementary checking.

      CFCs were long out of patent around the time of Montreal. Du Pont had a useful process patent, but the actual chemicals themselves could be made by anyone. The trademarks (such as Freon) were probably more valuable than the patents.

  23. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done ……….
    Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science. I’m not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It’s the one thing you do not ever do.

    James Lovelock, 29 March, 2010

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock

    • Lovelock, form the above:

      The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet.

  24. It seems to me the only people who have to worry about getting cancer from lack of ozone are those who live in live in Antarctica, and even then they would have to spend a lot of time outside, very few people do that.

    • Sadly you are wrong. A quick trip to New Zealand will set you straight on that. An hour outside without your shirt on in summer and you will be lobster red and peeling. My parents once warned a black African that he shouldn’t be walking around without a hat. He scoffed, thinking his skin colour would protect him. He was wrong.

      I’ve lived in Europe at about the same latitude and the difference is tremendous.

      That’s not to say CFCs are the cause, but there is no doubt that the lack of UV protection is a major issue, and it would not be nice if it got worse.

      • While the effect you describe, Mooloo, might be real, you are, sadly, wrong about the cause. The Earth itself does not orbit the sun in a neat circle, but orbits in an ellipse. The distance from the Sun varies between 146.5 million km in January to 151.5 million km in July, giving a 7% variation in solar energy due to the `inverse square law’ of distance. NZ is simply closer to the sun in its summer as opposed to Europe in its summer thus explaining the effects you’ve observed.

  25. The original claim that the ClOOCl absorption cross-section was lower than thought was from Stan Sander’s lab at JPL, Pope, et al. Rex only made a comment on the paper in Nature. About two years later it was shown that the Pope measurement was wrong by two groups, one in Taiwan using an elegant laser photolysis method and by Burkholder in Boulder using a better straightforward spectroscopic technique. The probable reason for Pope et al being wrong is that they overestimated the concentration of ClOOCl in their cell.

  26. What a poor article. So many errors.

    Trying to make out that ozone depletion might not be due to us. It continues the narrative that humans cannot possibly affect good old planet Earth.

    Only we can – and have. The depletion of ozone over high latitudes north and south is due to our pollutants. A variety of chemicals containing chlorine and bromine react strongly and in complex ways to destroy ozone.

    Its not in the winter that the depletion occurs, but largely in the spring and summer when long hours of sunshine return to high latitudes. We have had high UV alerts here in the UK in late spring specifically linked to abnormally low ozone concentrations.

    This article also fits with the “how can a trace gas do that” narrative.

    How can extremely low concentrations of pollutants possibly affect the ozone layer ? How can extremely low concentrations of ozone prevent most of the incoming solar UV from reaching the ground ? How can CO2 possibly have a significant warming effect when it is only 400 ppm ?

    Well they all do.

    The early signs of recovery in ozone is good news and if it continues will vindicate the international agreement to deal with a serious issue that affects far more than the sparse communities living on Antarctica.

    • A man with a clock knows what time it is. A man with two clocks is never sure.

      Did you get your data from a reliable source you could link to, or do you just know you are right?

    • Like that kool aid eh? I’ve looked at hundreds of ozone graphs over both poles. It is NOT what you would expect from a ‘well mixed’ gas chemistry. It is full of blobs and splotches that vary hourly / daily. It is a radiative / magnetic / fast variance thing.

      The solar UV / air layer movement /magnetic / particle pattern matches much much better.

      IMHO Ozone was the test run for AGW and just as bogus, using many of the same techniques with the same problems.

  27. James Abbott
    “Well they all do.”

    Well that’s it then, say no more, that proves it, game over.
    But still waiting for those satellites to detect the warming from all that increased CO2

  28. Black Pearl – Yep, those are accepted facts, as far as we can be sure. Based on science research going back decades.

    I’ll ask you the same question I have often put on this site – and have never had an evidenced answer to…

    If CO2 does not produce warming, then tell us what would happen if (model world of course) we take say half the CO2 out of the atmosphere ? Or all of it ? Presumably no change ?

    • The article has sources and links to graph of data. You pop up and say “Well they all do.”. Which do you think anyone reading will find more convincing?

      Your main source of info seems to be what you see on the 2 min telly weather bulletins.

      If you have some point to make back up by credible sources please try again.

      Dumb assertions from someone too lazy to inform themselves has zero impact. Go back to watching telly.

    • If we remove half the CO2 from the air, we would get significantly less food. If we remove more, our plants will start to die. http://bit.ly/1weUbNZ
      I recommend you should start this removal job right away to prove your point, as it is quite a job due to the existence of Henry’s Law causing the ocean to gas out CO2 to replace whatever you manage to remove.

      Compared to plant death anything else happening, be it real or imagined, will pale into insignificance.

  29. “The early signs of recovery in ozone is good news and if it continues will vindicate the international agreement to deal with a serious issue that affects far more than the sparse communities living on Antarctica.”

    Could have just said that. After all, that WAS your real point wasn’t it ?

  30. lawrence Cornell

    That and the attempt in the article to undermine what is very widely accepted science as to the cause of ozone depletion.

    • “…what is very widely accepted science as to the cause of ozone depletion.”

      Kinda rolls off the tongue so “authoritatively” like ‘ 97 percent consensus as to the cause of global warming’.

      At least you admitted your primary point is political, but then, you don’t think you have, do you ?

  31. Why is there so much Ozone in the ring around the hole at 40S to 60S. These numbers are the highest for any part of the planet at any time of the year.

    I wonder where all that extra Ozone in the stratosphere comes from. It couldn’t possibly be just moved away from that near-by hole I imagine.

    ——-

    This year’s hole looks about the same as last year (and at September 9, we are not quite at the peak yet).

  32. Ozone is the result of the protection not as much the protection. The hole is a result of the lack of sunlight.

    Loss of Ozone in the upper atmosphere would just mean it would be absorbed at a lower altitude.

    Ozone layer is at about 33 km, that means 33 km of oxygen it will have to pass through where ti could be absorbed the whole way.

  33. Obviously this can only be called hearsay unless someone has access to source documents. I don’t recall details as well as might be desired but years ago, on an (anti-greens) environmental website, the claim was printed that the entire things was a scam, evidenced by an article in the 1920 edition (or some year near there) Encyclopedia Britannica which reported the ozone hole, discovered by an Antarctic expedition. No one at that time considered it any more than a curiosity.

    The website author believed it was largely a product of the polar atmospheric conditions and Antarctic volcanoes. I don’t know enough about measuring such things to know if it was possible to detect such a thing with that era’s technology. Also, if it means anything, this author claimed to be a once well published environmental scientist who lost his university position by questioning some of the acid rain claims of that time.

  34. “The cold, the lack of sunlight to form new ozone, and the [isolating] circular wind pattern in Antarctica all conspire to reduce ozone without any help from CFCs at all.”
    = = = = =

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

    &

    The [Antarctic] 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

    Remove isolation of the polar vortex from the equation, and the ozone “hole,” now continuously replenished with enriched air from surrounding regions, will disappear, along with the ozone enriched accretion region surrounding it.
    But remove CFCs, and the same depletion/accretion pattern will continue to emerge indefinitely, with seasonal variations in the size and shape of the polar vortex explaining and matching–exactly–any seasonal variations in the size and shape of the depletion/accretion regions:

    CFCs or Bipolar Vortex? — NASA, 2002

    • Yes, that’s the simplest explanation, i.e. the dynamical forces of the Polar Vortex displace the ozone, resulting in an Ozone “Surplus” around the Polar Vortex and associated Ozone “Hole”:

      NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center

      It is primarily centrifugal force, i.e. “The walls of the polar vortex act as the boundaries for the extraordinary changes in chemical concentrations. Now the polar vortex can be considered a sealed chemical reactor bowl, containing a water vapor hole, a nitrogen oxide hole and an ozone hole, all occurring simultaneously (Labitzke and Kunze 2005)”
      http://books.google.com/books?id=B93SSQrcAh4C&lpg=PA283&ots=d0-uBRjmyI&dq=%22water%20vapor%20hole%22%20polar%20vortex&pg=PA283#v=onepage&q=%22water%20vapor%20hole%22%20polar%20vortex&f=false

      “The transport circulation is modified to simulate the vortex by preventing the exchange of air across the vortex boundary. The 03 distributions calculated using standard gasphase chemistry with and without this modification are shown in Figures 2a and 2b, respectively. Comparison of Figures 2a and 2b shows that modification of the circulation to eliminate transport of 03 into the vortex has the effect of increasing 03 (up to 10%) immediately outside the vortex wall and decreasing 03 (up to 20%) inside the vortex. In the following discussion the change in 03 due to the imposed 03 hole will be calculated relative to the 03 amount given in Figure 2b.”
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JD094iD09p11521/abstract

      By way of example:

      “Structure of a Hurricane
      In center: centrifugal force is very strong
      ƒ Divergence and sinking air
      ƒ Mostly clear skies in the eye of the hurricane”
      http://www.indiana.edu/~geog109/topics/13_severe/13-Hurricanes_nf.pdf

      “The hurricane’s center is a relatively calm, generally clear area of sinking air and light winds that usually do not exceed 15 mph (24 km/h) and is typically 20-40 miles (32-64 km) across. An eye will usually develop when the maximum sustained wind speeds go above 74 mph (119 km/h) and is the calmest part of the storm.

      But why does an eye form? The cause of eye formation is still not fully understood. It probably has to do with the combination of “the conservation of angular momentum” and centrifugal force. The conservation of angular momentum means is objects will spin faster as they move toward the center of circulation. So air increases it speed as it heads toward the center of the tropical cyclone. One way of looking at this is watching figure skaters spin. The closer they hold their hands to the body, the faster they spin. Conversely, the farther the hands are from the body the slower they spin. In tropical cyclone, as the air moves toward the center, the speed must increase.

      However, as the speed increases, an outward-directed force, called the centrifugal force, occurs because the wind’s momentum wants to carry the wind in a straight line. Since the wind is turning about the center of the tropical cyclone, there is a pull outward. The sharper the curvature, and/or the faster the rotation, the stronger is the centrifugal force.

      Around 74 mph (119 km/h) the strong rotation of air around the cyclone balances inflow to the center, causing air to ascend about 10-20 miles (16-32 km) from the center forming the eyewall. This strong rotation also creates a vacuum of air at the center, causing some of the air flowing out the top of the eyewall to turn inward and sink to replace the loss of air mass near the center.

      Radar image of hurricane Andrew showing eye, eyewall, and spiral bands. This sinking air suppresses cloud formation, creating a pocket of generally clear air in the center. ”
      http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/tropics/tc_structure.htm

      This explains why the Ozone “Hole” has it’s lowest concentrations at its center:

      NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center

    • And there are other dynamical influences that needs to be taken into account, i.e. “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

      “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/

      Air towards the top of the stratosphere and bottom of the mesosphere has lower concentrations of ozone;

      NOAA – National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) – Click the pic to view at source

      As such, when this “air from very high altitudes descends vertically through the center of the vortex” it displaces the air below it, decreasing the concentration of ozone within the Polar Vortex.

      Additionally, “Throughout the winter, air from the upper stratosphere moves poleward and descends into the middle stratosphere. In the SH lower to middle stratosphere, strongest descent occurs near the edge of the polar vortex. The NH shows a similar pattern in late winter, but in early winter strongest descent is near the center of the vortex. Strong barriers to latitudinal mixing exist above =420 K throughout the winter. Below this, the polar night jet is weak in early winter, so air that descends below that level mixes between polar and middle latitudes. 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.”

      “Diagnostics of mixing show a strong barrier to mixing at the edge of the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere, even into December in the SH, In the middle stratosphere, stratospheric warmings cause mixing to increase, and the vortex edge, as identified by a minimum in mixing, to move to higher PV values. This is consistent with previous studies showing the shrinking of the vortex and weakening of PV gradients during stratospheric warmings. As expected, considerably more mixing is seen in the NH than in the SH, In the lower stratosphere, in early winter the ,po]ar night jet usually does not extend significantly below =400 K, and parcels that descend below this level experience little barrier to mixing into mid-latitudes. As the winter progresses, the polar night jet moves downwards, and the parcels descend more slowly. Consistent with this, our simulations show considerably less mixing of polar air into mid-latitudes in late winter than in early winter in both hemispheres. In the presence of this polar night jet structure in the lower stratosphere and the sub-tropical jet in the upper troposphere, the degree of mixing of between polar and mid-latitude air in the lower stratosphere is strongly dependent on the amount of descent.”
      http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/33809/1/94-0540.pdf

      Here is a simple view of the Ozone Layer;

      Figure 2.14: Ozone Concentration vs. Height (Ajavon, et al., 2007)- Click the pic to view at source

      here is what happens to Column Ozone when the Polar Vortex descends into and through the Ozone Layer:

      Figure 2.14: Ozone Concentration vs. Height (Ajavon, et al., 2007)- Click the pic to view at source

      and here is an animation of it occurring in 2013:
      http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/spo_oz/movies/index.html

      Simple dynamical effects appear to explain the existence of Ozone “Holes”.

      • Ian W September 13, 2014 at 10:53 am

        If the Antarctic polar vortex is to blame due to its ‘tight circulation’ then the reason for the ‘recovery’ of the ozone ‘hole’ could be that, like the Arctic polar vortex, the jetstreams in the antipodes has moved equatorward and become latitudinal with huge Rossby waves.

        The most likely explanation for any observed “recover” of the “ozone hole” is that the stratospheric polar vortex is breaking down earlier, i.e.:

        “it is clear from the TOMS data that ozone transport and especially the timing of the vortex breakdown can have a large influence on the monthly mean total ozone, especially for October and November, when the vortex breakdown usually takes place. When the vortex breakdown occurs early (late) the October mean ozone is high (low). Figure 1 in Farman et al. also suggests that extreme high ozone values are associated with early breakdowns, while extreme low values are found in years with weak and late breakdowns. The vortex breakdowns of 1980-1982 were weaker and later than for 1978 and 1979. Thus, it is possible that the observed long-term ozone changes are in part the result of changes in planetary wave activity and the stratospheric circulation.
        http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/213/GL013i012p01193.pdf

        “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

        See: http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-90.99,-89.01,486

        The polar vortex around the South pole now reaches almost to the equator.

        No, you are at the wrong altitude. The stratospheric”polar vortex extends from the tropopause (the dividing line between the stratosphere and troposphere) through the stratosphere and into the mesosphere (above 50 km). Low values of ozone and cold temperatures are associated with the air inside the vortex.” NASA

        PhysicalGeography.net – Click the pic to view at source

        250hPa is approximately 10,000 feet and thus the Stratospheric Polar Vortex rarely reaches that far down and is if so it is only its tail. To see the Stratospheric Polar Vortex, you need to look here;
        http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-90.99,-89.01,486

        and here:
        http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-90.99,-89.01,486

        or alternately, you can review the new WUWT Southern Polar Vortex page I am working on:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/polar-vortex/southern-polar-vortex-page/

      • Just The Facts September 13, 2014 at 10:54 pm

        Thanks for the link — a little later it also states:

        Effects on lower latitudes

        HALOE also has returned evidence that the effects of the Antarctic stratospheric vortex extend well beyond the South Pole during the Antarctic spring, when the vortex is most vigorous. The HALOE data show that Antarctic-type air, identified by low levels of ozone and other trace chemicals, reaches as far north as 40 degrees south latitude, covering part of the South American continent (Fig. 1b). The effects of the vortex are also extended by air currents into the tropics, to 25 degrees south latitude.

        During the 1992 Antarctic Spring, air with low levels of ozone, which also contained chemicals that help ozone destruction, spread northward into latitudes well beyond the Antarctic continent (Figs. 1a and 1b).”

        Are the lower and upper jets related?

      • Are the lower and upper jets related?

        It is all related, i.e. the atmosphere is rotating due to the Coriolis Effect, i.e.:

        “The Coriolis effect is caused by the rotation of the Earth and the inertia of the mass experiencing the effect. Because the Earth completes only one rotation per day, the Coriolis force is quite small, and its effects generally become noticeable only for motions occurring over large distances and long periods of time, such as large-scale movement of air in the atmosphere or water in the ocean. Such motions are constrained by the surface of the earth, so only the horizontal component of the Coriolis force is generally important. This force causes moving objects on the surface of the Earth to be deflected in a clockwise sense (with respect to the direction of travel) in the Northern Hemisphere and in a counter-clockwise sense in the Southern Hemisphere. Rather than flowing directly from areas of high pressure to low pressure, as they would in a non-rotating system, winds and currents tend to flow to the right of this direction north of the equator and to the left of this direction south of it. This effect is responsible for the rotation of large cyclones (see Coriolis effects in meteorology).”
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect

        When the Stratospheric Polar Vortex becomes split or displaced, it can have major impacts on circulations and temperatures at lower altitudes and far from the Arctic, i.e.:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/01/a-displaced-polar-vortex-and-its-causes/
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/08/when-does-a-displaced-polar-vortex-becomes-a-split-vortex/

  35. “The loss of the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere will lead to normally reflected high-energy ultraviolet light reaching the Earth’s surface, causing more sunburns and skin cancer, disruption of ecosystems such as marine plankton and algae, and other photosynthetic biomass, with a large ripple effect.”

    Sunburns and skin cancer are caused by sunbathing rather than ozone hole. Only a few scientists live in Antarctica and they don’t sunbathe there. UV-B hardly penetrates beyond one meter deep in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica. The tropical seas get the most UV-B penetrating up to 20 meters deep. Plankton and algae are blooming in the tropical seas. Apparently UV-B is not killing them.

  36. The ozone layer is NOT recovering from our CFCs. The claim that they hurt the ozone layer was a Dupont Chemical-created scam designed to get an out of patent CFC banned so that they could step up with a patented more expensive replacement. Twenty years later, the scientist that claimed that the CFC was bad admitted that he had fabricated the results.

    Now we know that ozone is broken down by nitrogen gas and solar radiation. Now, that the sun is going quiet, the ozone layer may be able to grow. Do not forget that we have never seen the planet without an ozone hole.

    • I’m still not sure why CO2 hasn’t been able to take that same sojourn south of the equator, seeing it’s a well mixed gas and all.

  37. Thompson and Solomon 2008: “Understanding Recent Stratospheric Climate Change”
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008JCLI2482.1

    This paper looks at changes in lower stratospheric temperatures and ozone concentration. Figure 1c shows the drop in ozone was concurrent with the two major eruptions in that period and slowly recovered from a low in 1993 after Mt Pinatubo until about 2004. There was a short recovery in between the two events

    Much of the “alarming” destruction of the ozone layer seems to be a result of natural events as does the recovery, though it is not possible from that data to rule out a possible additional anthropogenic effect.

    I have already shown how this cooling of the stratosphere is reflected by warming of the troposphere.
    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=902

    In short both the “alarming” global warming and the “alarming” loss of ozone seen in the period 1980-2000 were mainly cause by volcanoes.

    The subsequent lack of volcanoes and slow return towards earlier conditions explains the famous “pause” in global warming and the “recovery” of the ozone layer.

    The UN is trying to puff up claims that it’s last treaty actually did something in an attempt to convince us to engage in another one, renounce democracy and let them run the world.

    It is a coincidence that they are shouting about this in the run up to the meeting of ( some ) heads of state at the end of the month?

    • Stratospheric temps as above ( here inverted ) overlayed on changes in southern hemisphere SST.

      Volcanoes are a large cause of the late 20th. c warming. Contrary to mainstream climatology that only acknowledges the initial, short-lived, cooling blip.

      • Note the rise SST takes several years because of the thermal inertia of the ocean’s surface layers. The stratosphere curve ( mauve line ) gives a fairly instantaneous indication of the changes in atmospheric composition.

    • NASA not a drop of 5%-8% in ozone due to Mt Pinatubo but try to make that the fault of CFCs anyway. Despite admitting having NO data to support the idea they say that the earlier eruption in 1963 “probably” did not cause ozone reduction.

      They never let data ( or lack of it ) get in the way of science.

      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Volcano/

      “While we have no observations, the 1963 Agung eruption on the island of Bali probably did not deplete ozone as there was little atmospheric chlorine in the stratosphere. In 1991 after the Pinatubo eruption, when the amount of CFCs in the stratosphere increased, the ozone content in the mid-latitudes decreased by 5 percent to 8 percent, affecting highly populated regions,” says Stenchikov.

  38. Methane + chlorine = chlorinated hydrocarbons?

    Seawater + sunshine generate free chlorine. We titrated seawater back in high school in1962 by means of classic wet chemistry and gravimetry, using silver nitrate (soluble) turning into silver chloride (insoluble).

    I have often wondered why the presence of free chlorine in the oceans is not mentioned when discussing dioxines in seafood.

  39. “Within the span of nine months, NASA issued statements claiming of atmospheric ozone that “signs of recovery are not yet present,” there is “large variability,” it is “stabilizing,” and now, that the ozone problem is “recovering”…So which is it? “

    No, NASA said that “signs of recovery [of the Antarctic Ozone hole] are not yet present,” but the ozone hole stabilized, as measured by size of hole. This article says that the ozone layer “in the key mid-northern latitudes” is recovering, as measured by ozone concentration. They are not at all the same.

    The list of nations ratifying the Montreal Protocol is here. China ratified in June 1991, India in June 1992.

  40. For me, the interesting thing about the ozone hole is that it’s never actually done anyone or anything any harm. Not only is it over the most barren and unpopulated part of the planet, the Sun’s rays come in at such a steep angle down there that UV is scarcely a problem.

    I remember one time when the usual suspects were bigging up this issue, a child in Tierra del Fuego came down with a bad case of sunburn (one child, mind you), and it made international news! There were always serious problems with justifying the cost of this boondoggle.

    What puzzles me is; what would these turkeys do if there ever was a real, preventable global problem with an obvious cause? (Like, endemic war, povery, starvation, disease… I’ll get me coat.)

  41. I remember reading a long time ago that the consequence of so-called man-made ozone reduction was equivalent to moving about 100 miles closer to the equator. I was living in Florida at the time and thought how crazy it was for all my neighbors of European decent to be worrying about ozone depletion when they intentionally exposed themselves to 10 times the ultraviolet radiation of their cousins back in the old country, by living so much closer to the equator!

    Like climate change, the evidence is increasing that most of the fluctuations we see in the ozone layer are natural, and that the human impact is small to inconsequential. As Alan Caruba has been saying for years: “The Earth is fine. Save yourself!”

  42. I could never actually accept all the scaremongering – it was more a case of “follow the money”

    How fortuitous that DuPont – who had made a fortune manufacturing Freon just happened to have a new (monopoly mind you) set of chemicals HCFC’s and HFC’s able to save mankind. Oh and make a huge killing into the bargain

    Andi

  43. Gouge the middle-class, and price the poor, out of air conditioning, and refrigeration, for food. Now that’s an accomplishment worth celebrating!
    If Seth Borenstein was a real journalist, that would make a serious story. Too bad he is just a propaganda mouth piece.

  44. The infamous Ozone Hole subect is full of misunderstandings, pseudoscience, myths and wrong assumptions. Inside the Antarctic Polar Vortx there are several “holes”, one of them is Freon-1 as discoverede many years agbi by the joint program NASA/University of Wuppertall with the Crista-Spas satellite. They used the F-11 molecule as a marker for analyzing other molecules… but they found out there is a lack of F-11 molecules inside the polar vortex or in the entire Antarctica.

    See what the chemistry inside the Vortex looks like, and then will start to put thing in their proper order:

    • Yes, “the polar vortex can be considered a sealed chemical reactor bowl, containing a water vapor hole, a nitrogen oxide hole and an ozone hole, all occurring simultaneously (Labitzke and Kunze 2005)”
      http://books.google.com/books?id=B93SSQrcAh4C&lpg=PA283&ots=d0-uBRjmyI&dq=%22water%20vapor%20hole%22%20polar%20vortex&pg=PA283#v=onepage&q=%22water%20vapor%20hole%22%20polar%20vortex&f=false

      There have been “measurements of low methane concentrations in the vortex made by the HALOE instrument on board the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite.” Rapid descent of mesospheric air into the stratospheric polar vortex, AGU 1993
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/93GL01104/abstract

      “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.”

      “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.”
      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/267/5199/849.short

      Here are the associated images of the Ozone, Nitric Acid and Water Vapor Holes:

      Interhemispheric Differences in Polar Stratospheric HNO3, H20, C10, and 03 – Santee, et al.

  45. Location the polar vortex depends on solar activity and the earth’s magnetic field.
    Need to compare the distribution of ozone with the magnetic field of the earth, in order to understand the importance of cosmic and solar radiation.

  46. Tsar Bomba – NOx induced ozone depletion?

    “Although simplistic fireball calculations predicted the fireball would hit the ground, the bomb’s own shock wave reflected back and prevented this. The fireball reached nearly as high as the altitude of the release plane and was visible at almost 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) away from where it ascended. The subsequent mushroom cloud was about 64 kilometres (40 mi) high (over seven times the height of Mount Everest), which meant that the cloud was above the stratosphere and well inside the mesosphere when it peaked.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

  47. Yes, well..

    The ozone hole was the first case in which I actually knew what was really going on when the public was being paniced over an enviro problem. Acid rain made me suspicious, but wasn’t something I knew anything about.

    Most of the legitimate ozone layer concern arose, however, from an error – specifically the sensor readings from a key satelite showed a real problem emerging very quickly; and that caused serious people some real concern. As it turned out, however, the thing’s orbit wasn’t circular -actually a rotationally asymmetric ellipsoid influenced by atmospheric heating having different effects during parts of its orbit. The result, since the sensors depended on reflected radiation, was to reduce readings in some area to near zero – hence the “wobbly top” picture that emerged of the ozone hole floating around the magnetic pole.

    Oops! but by the time the people at JPL understood, the media was in full cry and couldn’t be corrected.

  48. Thanks (in part) to financial incentives to destroy CFCs under the Kyoto Protocol, there are even more CFCs in existence (in China) than there were before.

    No, there is more HFC-23 which is a greenhouse gas, not a CFC.

    This might explain why, more than 15 years after the Montreal Protocol was put into effect by the UN, NASA reported in 2006 that the ozone hole over the Antarctic reached a record size:

    No, it can’t since HFC-23 contributes no Cl atoms.

    One of the biggest issues with the Antarctic ozone hole is that it is not a year-round event. It peaks at its worst during the long, dark Antarctic winter.

    No, it peaks in the spring when the sun returns to the antarctic.

  49. If the ozone hole is caused by CFC, why is it more pronounced in Antarctica than Arctic? My guess is the hole is caused by chlorine from sea sprays. Activists say this is soluble in water from rain and does not reach the stratosphere. Guess what. South Pole is a cold desert almost never receiving rainfall. Air humidity is near zero. Cannot dissolve chlorine without water in the air. The Arctic Ocean is not completely frozen. There is some evaporation and water in the air.

    • There might not be rain but there is certainly snow which falls around the coast this is where the Cl from the surrounding ocean is precipitated out. In any case the air over the poles is descending from the stratosphere and it got there by ascending at lower latitudes where rain certainly washes it out, the CFCs however are not washed out and generate catalytic halogen species that remove O3.

      • Amazing how snow and rain seek out each chlorine atom in the atmosphere and bring it down to the ground. I guess the air has no dust particle. Each particle has been eliminated by snow and rain. After all, dust is bigger than an atom. Easier to catch by snow and rain.

        BTW I didn’t know the air at the poles descended from the stratosphere. I always thought the air in the stratosphere is less dense than air in the troposphere. Maybe Archimedes was wrong. Lighter fluids sink in heavier fluids.

    • Dr. Strangelove : “There is some evaporation and water in the air.”
      Exactly and this brings down the cloride.
      By the way: How would you make chlorine free radicals from chloride?
      O.k. I forgot: Dr. Strangelove

      • Cloud static electricity enables electrolysis of chloride solution
        2NaCl + 2H2O –> Cl2 + H2 + 2NaOH

        UV splits Cl2 into free radicals
        Cl2 –> Cl* + Cl*

        ok you forgot

        “Exactly and this brings down the chloride”

        There should never be CO2 in the atmosphere. They are all dissolved in water and brought down by rain. Brilliant idea!

  50. The ozone hole is an absence of the reaction of sunlight (the UV element) hitting oxygen molecules, splitting them into ions, and them rushing back together casuing O2 and O3. :)

    Thats why the “holes” only appear at the pole that is experiencing winter! :D

    • Completely wrong.
      The O3 destroying reactions are photolytic which is why O3 is not destroyed during the winter, also the destructive species are sequestered on Polar Stratospheric clouds during the extreme cold. When the sun rises in the spring the PSCs melt, release the destructive species and the photolysis reactions take place under the influence of the UV light.
      This is why the holes appear in the spring.

  51. btw, phil

    Watch the animation provided at the end of the article, noting that ozone depletion increases throughout winter, reaching maximum depletion in early spring when the polar vortex is at maximum velocity and therefore most isolated/detached from the surrounding ozone rich regions.
    Note the increasing concentration of ozone in the accretion region.
    That is why the “hole”— and those mountains surrounding it that you forgot to mention—are at maximum depth/height in early Antarctic spring.

    Note that your CFC fairy tale doesn’t account for the accretion region, because it can’t! (hence why proponents of the CFC depletion story fastidiously ignore accretion.) Note that the depletion/accretion phenomena comes to an end in spring when the polar vortex warms and weakens, ending the period of isolation, allowing ozone enriched rich air to flow poleward and mix with the ozone depleted air.
    CFCs are redundant to the explanation of the natural phenomena. Since they can’t explain accretion, they are also deficient.
    See my annotated CFC-free explanation from NASA, above.

  52. Yes, basically the CFC-ozone hole connection was a lynch mob. They wanted to find a way – ANY WAY – to ban ANY industrial material. They needed a victim, and they needed a suspect to lynch. And they got out their pitchforks and torches and proceeded to hang an innocent suspect.

    And, having gotten their blood lust up, then it was on to lynch the much more ubiquitous CO2.

    “…Joe D’Aleo says he thinks that the Antarctic ozone hole might simply be a permanent feature of the Earth that we only discovered when we went looking for the posited ozone reduction”

    I was far from a climate skeptic back in the 1980s when this CFCs>ozone-hole alarm popped up, but my first question was exactly what Joe asks now – “How do they know it wasn’t there before? Has anyone even checked?” They never did.

    It mattered to me, because at the time I was working on big monster hot-runner plastic multi-layer co-injection blow molds and frequently got burned by the hot runner block and other heated elements (about 430°F). The VERY BEST means of treating burns, I found out, was CFC sprays – such as the ones they used during football games to freeze sprained ankles. The CFC spray was so cold and so quick that burns did not get a chance to make blisters, and the pain was taken way immediately.

    So, when they decided to ban CFCs, burns in my plant were not treated as well – and were MUCH more painful. But that is why I paid attention, and to this day, even though I’ve kept my ear to the ground about it, I have not EVER heard of anyone even LOOKING to see if the ozone hole was there before the satellites indicated its presence.

    • You can’t have looked very hard, the original BAS data dating from 1956 showed no hole there until the early 80s.

      Instruments on the ground (at Halley) and high above Antarctica (the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer [TOMS] and Ozone Monitoring Instrument [OMI]) measured an acute drop in total atmospheric ozone during October in the early and middle 1980s. (Halley data supplied by J. D. Shanklin, British Antarctic Survey ).

      • Phil.

        You say

        You can’t have looked very hard, the original BAS data dating from 1956 showed no hole there until the early 80s.

        Say what!?

        Your graph does not show any “hole”. It shows a time period from ~1956 to the present during which the ozone concentration fluctuated between ~325 and ~100 DU in a manner approximating a sine curve.

        At issue is whether that fluctuation is natural or not, and your assertions provide no evidence pertaining to that issue.

        Richard

  53. Khwarizmi September 15, 2014 at 7:58 pm
    The O3 destroying reactions are photolytic
    ====

    Where did you get that completely wrong story from?

    That correct story is based on the fundamental physical chemistry of the process.

    “When ozone is produced it will decay rapidly, because ozone is an instable compound with a relatively short half-life”

    http://www.lenntech.com/library/ozone/decomposition/ozone-decomposition.htm

    Great an article on the use of ozone in water! We are talking about the stratosphere in winter where the temperature is about -80ºC. Your own citation rebuts your own comment since it says the half-life of ozone in the atmosphere is 3 months at -50ºC and doubles for every further 10ºC reduction!
    So your own source says that in the stratosphere in the antarctic winter O3 is not unstable and doesn’t decay rapidly.

    Photolysis produces and replenishes ozone — spontaneous reactions destroy it.
    In the antarctic spring in the stratosphere, photolytic reactions with halogen species destroy it.

  54. Dr. Strangelove September 15, 2014 at 8:32 pm
    Amazing how snow and rain seek out each chlorine atom in the atmosphere and bring it down to the ground. I guess the air has no dust particle. Each particle has been eliminated by snow and rain. After all, dust is bigger than an atom. Easier to catch by snow and rain.

    BTW I didn’t know the air at the poles descended from the stratosphere. I always thought the air in the stratosphere is less dense than air in the troposphere. Maybe Archimedes was wrong. Lighter fluids sink in heavier fluids.

    Well you learn something everyday don’t you, it’s called the Polar Cell and is responsible for the high pressure over Antarctica.
    See here for example: http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/class/gencirc.html

    “Polar Cell

    Sinking air at the poles warms and results in a high pressure over the poles. At the surface, the poleward moving air gets pulled to the right by the Coriolis force (in the northern hemisphere) forming the polar easterly winds. The cold polar air meets with the warm subtropical air moving poleward and forms the boundary between these two air masses known as the polar front. The warm air from the subtropics pushes up over the cold equatorward moving polar air. “

  55. richardscourtney September 17, 2014 at 3:48 am
    Phil.

    You say
    You can’t have looked very hard, the original BAS data dating from 1956 showed no hole there until the early 80s.
    Say what!?

    Your graph does not show any “hole”. It shows a time period from ~1956 to the present during which the ozone concentration fluctuated between ~325 and ~100 DU in a manner approximating a sine curve.

    At issue is whether that fluctuation is natural or not, and your assertions provide no evidence pertaining to that issue.

    No it was stated that there had been no attempt to see if there had been a ‘hole’ prior to the satellite data which the poster mistakenly thought was how the reduction in Ozone had been detected. I showed that there was data which showing the absence of the ‘hole’ in the late 50s through early 80’s. More like a logistic curve than a sinusoid. Since we know the mechanism of O3 destruction and components of it are not natural it is likely that the enhanced destruction is not a natural phenomena.
    Contrary to the assertion attributed to D’Aleo above, no one went ‘looking for the posited ozone reduction’, the data had been taken long before there was any such suggestion.

    • Phil.

      You continue your usual practice of bolstering opinion with unjustifiable assertion when you say

      More like a logistic curve than a sinusoid. Since we know the mechanism of O3 destruction and components of it are not natural it is likely that the enhanced destruction is not a natural phenomena.

      And that assertion of “not natural” is an unfounded excuse to ignore my statement that

      At issue is whether that fluctuation is natural or not, and your assertions provide no evidence pertaining to that issue.

      I like evidence, information and analysis. But, as usual, you only provide assertion, assumption and unjustifiable prejudice.

      Richard

      • No richard I provided data, something you avoided doing, but you don’t like it because it doesn’t conform to your prejudice. Then you made a completely unjustified assertion that there was a fluctuation approximating a sine curve to which I replied based on the same evidence, which I had provided, that it more like a logistic curve. There is no evidence of a periodic fluctuation which would be implied by a sinusoid. Since you like evidence I suggest you read up on the mechanism of the destruction of O3:
        http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/index.html

      • Phil.

        You really ‘take the biscuit’.

        You did NOT provide information: you provided information together with unfounded assertion and prejudice, and when I pointed that out you have accused me of prejudice! This, of course, is typical of your usual schoolyard behaviour.

        Phil.,
        there is no ‘hole’: that is a misnomer,
        and
        the supposed ‘ozone hole’ was used to enable the Montreal Protocol that banned CFCs,
        and
        the Montreal Protocol was used as the model for the Kyoto Protocol intended to constrain CO2 emissions,
        and
        there is no history of the Antarctic O3 concentration prior to 1956,
        and
        the relationship of CFCs to the ‘ozone hole’ was never adequately demonstrated and evidence which refutes the relationship has increased with time. One of those pieces of evidence can be found here:
        http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html

        You probably know all this but – as you usually do – you prefer to promote propaganda.

        Richard

  56. richardscourtney September 17, 2014 at 7:51 am
    Phil.

    You really ‘take the biscuit’.

    You did NOT provide information: you provided information together with unfounded assertion and prejudice,

    As anyone who has read this thread can see that is a lie, as usual when you intrude into a thread the lies and ad hominem proliferate!
    In Phil. September 17, 2014 at 3:08 am I posted a graph and its caption, that’s all.

    and when I pointed that out you have accused me of prejudice! This, of course, is typical of your usual schoolyard behavior.

    That’s all you ever post richard, your biased assertions, misquotations and ad hominem attacks, it’s very boring.

    Phil.,
    there is no ‘hole’: that is a misnomer,

    It’s actually a good description, rather like pointing to a gap in a lower level stratus cloud and saying ‘there’s a hole in the clouds’, that there might be some light wispy cirrus high above is not particularly relevant, especially if you’re a pilot who wants to get above the clouds, you don’t care about the cirrus at 40,000′. But a pedant like you will clutch onto any straw to buttress your bogus point.

    the supposed actual ‘ozone hole’ was used to enable the Montreal Protocol that banned CFCs,
    and
    the Montreal Protocol was used as the model for the Kyoto Protocol intended to constrain CO2 emissions,

    there is no history of the Antarctic O3 concentration prior to 1956,

    No there is not but the BAS data which detected the antarctic ‘ozone hole’ does precede the satellite data which the post I was rebutting was unaware of.

    the relationship of CFCs to the ‘ozone hole’ was never adequately demonstrated
    Not true.

    and evidence which refutes the relationship has increased with time.
    Again not true.

    One of those pieces of evidence can be found here:

    http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html

    Richard’s shorthand for: ‘the only one I’ve been able to find’.
    Unfortunately, that paper, which contradicted other earlier values, has been subsequently been shown to be incorrect using better methods. Of course richard will continue to trot it out in future pretending he doesn’t know about it, as is his wont.
    http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090507/full/news.2009.456.html
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5928/781.full?searchid=1&HITS=10&hits=10&volume=324&resourcetype=HWCIT&maxtoshow=&RESULTFORMAT=&FIRSTINDEX=0&firstpage=781

    “The absorption values they obtained are much larger than those reported by Pope, and agree well with previously calculated values. Reassuringly, they point to a photolysis rate that is large enough to support established models of ozone depletion and suggest that chlorine-catalysed ozone loss works even more efficiently in the polar stratosphere than thought.”

    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp9065345

    “The Cl2O2 absorption cross sections obtained for wavelengths in the range 300−420 nm are in good agreement with the Cl2O2 spectrum reported previously by Burkholder et al. (J. Phys. Chem. A 1990, 94, 687) and significantly higher than the values reported by Pope et al. (J. Phys. Chem. A 2007, 111, 4322). A possible explanation for the discrepancy in the Cl2O2 cross section values with the Pope et al. study is discussed. Representative, atmospheric photolysis rate coefficients are calculated and a range of uncertainty estimated based on the determination of σCl2O2(λ) in this work. Although improvements in our fundamental understanding of the photochemistry of Cl2O2 are still desired, this work indicates that major revisions in current atmospheric chemical mechanisms are not required to simulate observed polar ozone depletion.

    You probably know all this but – as you usually do yes I do.

    – you prefer to promote propaganda.

    I stick with the science, propaganda is your preserve.

    • Phil.

      As usual, you provide irrelevant rant that has little relation to reality, and you throw insults like confetti but provide nothing of worth.

      My link was to a paper in Nature which completely demolishes your assertions concerning the supposed cause of the ozone variation which is misnamed a “hole”. Being unable to refute it, you say that paper is the only one I could cite; that is not true, but if it were true then, so what?
      I cited clear evidence which shows you are – as usual – wrong, and you have shown no ability to refute it.

      You started this with your untrue assertion that the so-called ozone ‘hole’ is known to have not existed prior to 1956. That assertion is a falsehood and your bluster fails to disguise that falsehood.

      And you asserted the falsehood that the so-called ‘hole’ is known to have been caused by human emissions of CFCs. I refuted that falsehood with clear evidence that you have shown no ability to answer.

      Now please return to your playpen until you have overcome your temper tantrum.

      Richard

      • Richard, you would do well to heed Mark Twain’s advice: “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
        My link was to a paper in Nature which completely demolishes your assertions concerning the supposed cause of the ozone variation which is misnamed a “hole”. Being unable to refute it, you say that paper is the only one I could cite; that is not true, but if it were true then, so what?
        Because that paper has been shown to be wrong, by the two studies that I cited, so you have nothing.

        I cited clear evidence which shows you are – as usual – wrong, and you have shown no ability to refute it.
        On the contrary I refuted it by reference to two subsequent papers which specifically addressed the methods used and using better methods showed that that paper was wrong. I gave links to both papers and to Nature, the source of the paper you referenced which headlined its article: “Ozone data conflict resolved”.

        I can only conclude that you just can’t be bothered to read anyone else’s posts since otherwise you wouldn’t have made such an obviously false statement.

        You started this with your untrue assertion that the so-called ozone ‘hole’ is known to have not existed prior to 1956.

        I made no such statement, you don’t improve your case by such blatant lying richard.

        I suggest you return to your fantasy world and stop cluttering up the threads with your childish insults and lying.

      • Phil.

        I am saddened that you refused to follow my instruction and return to your playpen until you had overcome your temper tantrum. In hope that it helps your ability to control yourself, I assure you that I am not trying to damage your reputation as being the most odious troll who infests WUWT.

        There was no clear evidence that the variation in Antarctic stratospheric ozone existed prior to 1956. If you were to suck your dummy then perhaps you could stop bawling long enough for you to try to think how there could have been such evidence.

        And the paper I cited shows that such evidence as did exist was inadequate. It showed that the measurements which were used as the ‘evidence’ that CFCs had caused of the reduction to Antarctic stratospheric ozone concentration were inaccurate. The papers you cited did not falsify that finding but showed the measurement error bands could be increased to enable the CFC hypothesis to be sustained.

        Such post hoc excuses for inconvenient truths are now the norm for climastrology; e.g. excuses for absence of the tropospheric ‘hot spot’, ‘missing heat’ hiding in the oceans, 52 excuses for lack of ‘projected’ and ‘predicted’ warming. etc..

        Now suck your dummy, cuddle your ‘blankie’, and play with your toys instead of bothering the grown-ups with your screaming.

        Richard

  57. richardscourtney September 19, 2014 at 12:49 am
    Phil.

    I am saddened that you refused to follow my instruction and return to your playpen until you had overcome your temper tantrum. In hope that it helps your ability to control yourself, I assure you that I am not trying to damage your reputation as being the most odious troll who infests WUWT.

    Your behavior clearly shows that you have earned that title by a wide margin.

    There was no clear evidence that the variation in Antarctic stratospheric ozone existed prior to 1956. If you were to suck your dummy then perhaps you could stop bawling long enough for you to try to think how there could have been such evidence.

    Good so you agree with me on that point, stick to the science and stop your childish insults.

    And the paper I cited shows that such evidence as did exist was inadequate. It showed that the measurements which were used as the ‘evidence’ that CFCs had caused of the reduction to Antarctic stratospheric ozone concentration were inaccurate.

    Clearly you didn’t read the paper or didn’t understand it, it says nothing of the sort. Pope et al tried to measure the photolysis rate of Cl2O2, a key step in the mechanism of O3 destruction. They used a different approach than had been used before and came up with a value an order of magnitude lower than previous measurements.

    The papers you cited did not falsify that finding but showed the measurement error bands could be increased to enable the CFC hypothesis to be sustained.

    The first study to check Pope’s result used a molecular beam experiment which wasn’t subject to the problem of impurities that Pope’s was and showed values consistent with the previous results, there was no increase in error bands, Pope’s results are clearly an outlier by a wide margin, as Pope said: “”Impurity does pose a problem, and their method seems like a rigorous way of getting round it, If their numbers are correct, ours were wrong.” The second study by Burkholder’s group showed excellent agreement with the new data using a different method and show that the Pope data is in error. Further work by Chen’s group has confirmed this.
    Contrary to your claim, the work that I cited has narrowed the error bands of the photolysis rates.

    Now try to focus on the science not the other childish nonsense.

  58. Phil.

    There is no evidence of Antarctic stratospheric ozone variation prior to 1956 because there are no measurements prior to 1956.

    The hypothesis of CFCs being responsible for the variation is – at best – dubious.

    Your nit-picking does not change those realities, so please return to your playpen and leave the discussion to grown-ups. As usual, your presence is an unpleasant pollution of the thread.

    Richard

    • There is no evidence of Antarctic stratospheric ozone variation prior to 1956 because there are no measurements prior to 1956.

      Quite so as I pointed out previously, I’m not sure why you think that it’s important enough to keep bringing up rather than answer the substantive points I made. There’s also no evidence of such variation after 1956 until the late 70’s for which we do have measurements which makes your claim of a sinusoidal fluctuation unsupported by the data, hence my suggestion of a logistic curve which is consistent with the existing data.

      The hypothesis of CFCs being responsible for the variation is – at best – dubious.

      Not at all, it’s well supported by the data, inconvenient for your paymasters no doubt.

      Your nit-picking does not change those realities,

      The scientific data I present does however contradict your ‘reality’ which is why you throw such a hissy fit every time it’s presented. When you resort to bringing up papers which had been rebutted 5 years ago expect to have them shot down (and not just by me)

      • Phil.

        If you really think your irrelevant and trivial ‘red herrings’ are “substantive points” then be pleased they remain unchallenged because I cannot be bothered to address them.

        The level of natural background variation is not known because there is no data prior to 1956. You say you cannot understand why that is important, and knowing your ‘previous’ I am willing to believe you are so incompetent and so ignorant that – as you claim – you fail to see the importance of that when attributing the variation to humanity.

        I repeat, please return to your playpen because your childish tantrums are annoying.

        Richard

  59. richardscourtney September 19, 2014 at 7:32 am
    Phil.

    If you really think your irrelevant and trivial ‘red herrings’ are “substantive points” then be pleased they remain unchallenged because I cannot be bothered to address them.

    Which is richard-speak for, ‘I don’t understand them and I lack the competence to address them so I’ll pretend they don’t exist’. Research which proves that the only evidence you provided in an attempt to rebut the ozone depletion mechanism was in error is both relevant and substantive. It’s unfortunate that whoever fed you that information failed to warn you that it was obsolete and put you in this difficult position.

    The level of natural background variation is not known because there is no data prior to 1956. You say you cannot understand why that is important,

    More of your lies richard, I did not say that, I said that I couldn’t understand “why you think that it’s important enough to keep bringing up rather than answer the substantive points I made”, which is quite different. I know that you’ve demonstrated on here that your reading comprehension isn’t that good but it’s really not that difficult.
    and knowing your ‘previous’ I am willing to believe you are so incompetent and so ignorant that – as you claim – you fail to see the importance of that when attributing the variation to humanity.

    The lack of that data isn’t that important, your argument that because we don’t know what happened before 1956 we can never know what is causing the present depletion of stratospheric O3 in the antarctic spring is bogus. We know that something changed there in the late 70’s, we know the conditions under which it happens, we know that CFCs were accumulating there at that time, we know they were breaking down to form halogen compounds which are catalytic to the breakdown of O3, we know that they are concentrated and stored on PSC ice crystals which form in the extreme cold of the antarctic winter, and we know that these compounds are released in the spring when the first UV reaches there. Using all those facts we are able to put together a photo-kinetic reaction scheme which is able to reproduce the observed behavior very well.

    I repeat, please return to your playpen because your childish tantrums are annoying.

    I’m sure that you do find it annoying that the scientific facts which contradict your propaganda continue to be presented here, tough, deal with it.

  60. Phil.

    Thanks for the laugh. Your claim that your unsubstantiated opinions are “scientific facts” (whatever they are) is plain stupid. And your pretense that you understand what you are talking about has failed.

    Now please return to your playpen because your gibberish is becoming increasingly annoying.

    Richard

  61. Friends

    In case of the the unlikely circumstance that anybody has been following this, I explain the issue.

    Ozone has fluctuated in the Antarctic stratosphere and the multi-year fluctuation was a reduction following firast measurements of Antarctic stratospheric ozone in 1956.. The true natural level of the ozone is not known but the ozone concentration fluctuates naturally. Indeed, the ozone is destroyed by sunlight which is present only in the Antarctic summer. The ozone is also destroyed by interaction with chlorine compounds such as those emitted by the Antarctic Mount Erebus volcano.

    Humans emit chlorine compounds known as CFCs and, of course, they also destroy ozone. It is claimed that the reduction in the antarctic ozone since 1956 is caused by emissions of CFCs which reach the antarctic stratosphere. The degree of this effect is not known because there is no measured natural level of the ozone or its fluctuation. So, self-serving idiots like Phil. misnamed the reduction a ‘hole’ and claimed it was entirely caused by CFCs. Of course, with no known natural degree of fluctuation there is no way to determine if they are right, wrong, or partly right.

    But they used their assertions as excuse for the Montreal Protocol which banned CFCs.

    And obnoxious miscreants like Phil. who are making a living from these environmental scares pretend the CFCs are known to be responsible for the ozone depletion. Contemptible is too good a word for such people.

    Richard

    • Muddy the waters with your incoherent ramblings more like.

      Stratospheric ozone is created by UV light, but is destroyed by photolytic reactions with halogen compounds in the antarctic spring.
      The first measurements of total column O3 from 1956 showed an annual fluctuation from about 300-400 DU without the larger peak seen in the results from the arctic (Spitzbergen). This continued for about 20 years whereupon there was a rapid drop in the spring minimum (to below 200 DU by ’85, 91 DU in ’93) coincident with a rapid rise in stratospheric CFC concentration (there has been a 4-fold increase since the 50s). Balloon sonde results showed that the drop was due to virtually total loss of O3 between 15 and 20 km, where was a peak during the winter about 2 months before, the ‘hole’.
      The chlorinated compounds that are responsible for the destruction of the stratospheric O3 have been shown to be almost totally organic in origin (CFCs), Cl in the atmosphere from other sources such as volcanoes is negligible by comparison. Occasional volcanic contributions in the stratosphere occur when there are large eruptions (VEI greater than 3), Mt Erebus at it’s most active is in the range of VEI 1-2 so is a factor of hundreds too low. In fact when active its plume reaches no more than 0.5 km and mostly its emissions just drift over the walls of the cone so it is a non factor.

      “obnoxious miscreants like Phil. who are making a living from these environmental scares”
      More of your lies richard, have you no shame?

      Refs
      R. Zander, C. P. Rinsland, C. B. Farmer, and R. H. Norton, “Infrared Spectroscopic measurements of halogenated source gases in the stratosphere with the ATMOS instrument”,
      J. Geophys. Res. _92_, 9836, 1987.

      R. Zander, M.R. Gunson, J.C. Foster, C.P. Rinsland, and J. Namkung,
      “Stratospheric ClONO2, HCl, and HF concentration profiles derived from ATMOS/Spacelab 3 observations- an update”, J. Geophys. Res. _95_, 20519, 1990.

      [R. Zander, M. R. Gunson, C. B. Farmer, C. P. Rinsland, F. W. Irion, and E. Mahieu,
      “The 1985 chlorine and fluorine inventories in the stratosphere based on ATMOS observations
      at 30 degrees North latitude”, J. Atmos. Chem. _15_, 171, 1992.

      G. Zreda-Gostynska, P. R. Kyle, and D. L. Finnegan, “Chlorine, Fluorine and Sulfur Emissions from
      Mt. Erebus, Antarctica and estimated contribution to the antarctic
      atmosphere”, _Geophys. Res. Lett._ _20_, 1959, 1993.

Comments are closed.