From the University of Leeds
We are already reaping the rewards of the Montreal Protocol, with the ozone layer in much better shape than it would have been without the UN treaty, according to a new study in Nature Communications.
Study lead author Professor Martyn Chipperfield, from the School of Earth & Environment at the University of Leeds, said: “Our research confirms the importance of the Montreal Protocol and shows that we have already had real benefits. We knew that it would save us from large ozone loss ‘in the future’, but in fact we are already past the point when things would have become noticeably worse.”
Although the Montreal Protocol came into force in 1987 and restricted the use of ozone-depleting substances, atmospheric concentrations of these harmful substances continued to rise as they can survive in the atmosphere for many years. Concentrations peaked in 1993 and have subsequently declined.
In the new study, the researchers used a state-of-the-art 3D computer model of atmospheric chemistry to investigate what would have happened to the ozone layer if the Montreal Protocol had not been implemented.
Professor Chipperfield said: “Ozone depletion in the polar regions depends on meteorology, especially the occurrence of cold temperatures at about 20km altitude – colder temperatures cause more loss. Other studies which have assessed the importance of the Montreal Protocol have used models to predict atmospheric winds and temperatures and have looked a few decades into the future. The predictions of winds and temperatures in these models are uncertain, and probably underestimate the extent of cold winters.
“We have used actual observed meteorological conditions for the past few decades. This gives a more accurate simulation of the conditions for polar ozone loss.”
The researchers suggest that the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic would have grown in size by an additional 40% by 2013. Their model also suggests that had ozone-depleting substances continued to increase, the ozone layer would have become significantly thinner over other parts of the globe.
Professor Chipperfield said he undertook this study because of the exceptionally cold Arctic winter of 2010/11.
“We could see that previous models used to predict the impact of the Montreal Protocol in the future would not have predicted such extreme events and we wondered how much worse things could have been if the Montreal Protocol had not been in place,” he said.
Without the Montreal Protocol, the new study reveals that a very large ozone hole over the Arctic would have occurred during that cold winter and smaller Arctic ozone holes would have become a regular occurrence.
The Montreal Protocol has been strengthened over time through amendments and adjustments, supported by ongoing research. The researchers behind the new study say that scientists must continue to monitor the situation to ensure all potential threats to the ozone layer are mitigated.
###
Further information
The research was partially funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) through its National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS) and the National Centre for Earth Observation (NCEO).
The research paper, ‘Quantifying the Ozone and UV Benefits Already Achieved by the Montreal Protocol’, is published in the journal Nature Communications on 26 May 2015: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8233
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This demonstrates that acidity
is satisfactorily explained by the sum of the three mineral
acids H2S04, HN03 and HCI. The proportion of the latter
(CI- exc) is, however, nearly negligible, especially in the
coastal area (Table 1I). The percentages given in this table
also show that in the last part of the traverse, acid
contributions amount to about 2/3 of the total ionic budget,
HN03 being the major ionic trace element present in
snow.
Finally, it must be noted that NH~ concentrations are
found to be very low and stable all along the traverse. This
observation shows that the degree of neutralization of the
acidity is low (as already found at other Antarctic
locations), and also that the Southern Ocean is not a source
of ammonia, a conclusion which is in agreement with most
works on the origin of this gas in the troposphere.
http://www.igsoc.org:8080/annals/7/igs_annals_vol07_year1985_pg20-25.pdf
The increase of rapid secondary electrons over Antarctica (GCRII), nitrogen oxides increases, and therefore the nitric acid, which increases the amount of chloride ions in the atmosphere.
The environmentalist story is to sell ‘saving the ozone layer’ as a great success. But it isn’t. Decades after the Montreal Protocol the hole in the ozone layer is still there, as big as ever. It was probably always there, a natural phenomenon that, before satellites, we were unaware of.
Nevertheless its proponents have received billions of dollars in funding, so for them it was a success.
From the NASA website
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/new-results-from-inside-the-ozone-hole/#.VWWn2EaMcVd
From James Lovelock, the Green Guru…
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock
No doubt about it; the MP gets trotted out as a “success story”, and as an example of how “dangerous” CO2 can be dealt with in similar fashion, as part of the run-up to their big Paris ClimateFest.
The paper itself is just one more example of Alarmist confirmation bias on steroids.
The only problem with all of this is that NOBODY has yet offered a mechanism for Northern Hemisphere Freon Release to somehow migrate and concentrate at the SOUTH Pole! The very first Environmental Scam of the 20th Century!
sz939 – not only that, but I also question how the CFCs get above the tropopause boundary into the stratosphere when vertical convection is capped *hard* by the tropopause.
Also, have CFC levels been actually directly measured in the stratospheric polar regions to a level of so-many parts-per-million (or billion…or trillion) or is it all inferred from ozone levels? The only real sampling was of chlorine monoxide (ClO) from an ER-2 at the NASA ‘ozone Watch’ web site but no numbers were given.
CFCs have been measured in the stratosphere on multiple occasions, here’s an example up to 35km:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/11857/2012/acp-12-11857-2012.pdf
I’m pretty sure the ozone layer was going to do what the ozone layer was going to do and nobody should be taking credit for this.
If the Ozone hole is just a temporary seasonal feature, lasting just a few months at the end of the Antarctic winter, how can Ozone actually be destroyed.
It takes many years for the chemical reactions to replenish Ozone. We see that with the Stratospheric volcano eruptions. It might take 25 years or more.
All that happens is that the polar vortex moves the Ozone from 70S-90S to about 60S-70S. At the time the ozone hole is occurring, the area from 60S-70S has the highest levels of Ozone measured anywhere in the world at any time of the year.
It is just a seasonal function where the vortex moves the Ozone outside of the vortex and then it moves back in when the vortex becomes more moderate when the sunlight returns. This is very clear from the data.
Bill, you have the geography right. A seasonal maxima in Total Column Ozone occurs over Antarctica outside the margins of the hole when the hole is largest in the month of October. But the reason for the seasonal maximum in TCO is the lack of photolysis of ozone during the polar night together with the tendency of the NOx rich/ozone poor vortex to stall when surface pressure falls causing a reduction in the vorticity in the high pressure cell that sits over the pole. The polar stratosphere in winter strongly supports convection because the coolest temperature is found in the stratosphere at up to and beyond 10hPa. That is where the ‘tropopause’ is located. Yes, its a contradiction in terms, the tropopause is in the middle stratosphere. An enhanced tendency to convection carries with it the possibility of vortex disruption.
Think of the vortex as a local depression of the stratopause at the head of a cell of high pressure air that extends from the surface right up into the mesosphere. So, in fact the hole is actually mesospheric air, naturally deficient in ozone. Disrupt the vortex and its habitual location is flooded by ozone rich air from the periphery. This is described as a ‘sudden stratospheric warming’. Fragments of the old vortex air, now displaced, can be observed spinning away to lower latitudes. The vortex is monitored here: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/
There is an identity between ozone content, geopotential height and air temperature. A plot of any of these three variables tells us the same thing. In the polar night, ozone warms the air by absorbing long wave radiation from the Earth at 9-10um. So, the presence of high ozone levels close to the edge of the Nox vortex carries with it a potential for vortex disruption. The air over the polar cap (roughly congruent with the ozone hole) is observed to warm inversely with surface pressure. Surface pressure and the vorticity of the circulation are linked as in any pressure cell, high or low pressure, wherever located.
Yes, planetary waves are involved, but as effect, not cause.
And the Arctic and the Antarctic both experience a local depression of the stratopause over the pole. The difference lies in the difference in surface pressure between the two in winter and the consequent difference in the vorticity of the circulation and with it the extent of the depression of the stratopause. A severe depression of the stratopause is a visual indication of the quantity of mesospheric NOx that is entering the stratosphere. The severe depression of the stratopause over Antarctica is therefore associated with low ozone partial pressure across the entire southern hemisphere.
Current distribution of ozone over the southern polar circle.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t50_sh_f00.gif
Visible ozone hole shifting in the direction of the Atlantic.
Ozone is created by the Solar EUV, period! Now that Solar EUV is on a downward trend due to the end of Solar Cycle 24, expect the Ozone Hole to reappear just like in 2006 {which had the largest measured Ozone Hole}!
NOTE: Try to find a graph of Solar EUV and Ozone creation! They don’t exist. Was the Ozone-gate the beginning of Climate-gate?
Ozone hole on Venus caused by CFC’s. Would not exist if the Venusian’s had simply passed their won Montreal Protocol.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2010/09/Venus-Vortex-400×410-custom.jpg
Must. Not. Make. Joke. About. Uranus.
Doh!
Yeah, that is why Professor Chipperfield stores his dairy products, meats and medicines in the oven, and not in the frigde, because colder temperatures cause more loss. Maybe when he plays The Sims in his new 3D supercomputer.
Meanwhile in the real world, reactions slow down as temperature drops. Even ozone decomposes faster at higher temperatures.
Table 1: half-life of ozone in gas and water at different temperatures
http://oi61.tinypic.com/5v39ll.jpg
Read more: http://www.lenntech.es/biblioteca/ozone-decomposition.htm#ixzz3bLbGEgLo
I wonder what kind of chemical kinetics did Professor Chip study.
It is because ozone stay long in areas of the Polar Circle.
http://exp-studies.tor.ec.gc.ca/ozone/images/graphs/gl/current.gif
Evidently a good one unlike the HS school version you’re familiar with. Some reactions have a negative temperature rate coefficient, ever heard of engine ‘knock’? In the case of the ‘ozone hole’ the effect of low temperature is due to the formation of ‘Polar Stratospheric Clouds’, PSC’s, where important heterogeneous reactions are catalyzed, (did they cover those at your HS?)
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_kinetics :
Molecules at a higher temperature have more thermal energy, always, No exceptions. And those molecules with higher thermal energy can collide faster because they travel at higher speeds and when they collide they do it with more energy. Always, NO exceptions. There are no reactions where the rate increases as temperatures drops.
The only thing catalyst do is to provide a different reaction pathway with a lower activation energy. For this new reaction pathway same rule applies, higher temperature means faster degradation. And by the way, Professor Chipperfield does not mention PSC´s or catalysts.
Let me also cite “juice”, who replied to one of my post above,
(bolded mine)
I mostly agree with Juice, specially the bolded part. I am not convinced at all about the catalytic reactions, though. ozone is a very unstable molecule and chlorine radicals are even more unstable, and monoatomic, the activation energy of that reaction must be very low, There is no much room for improvement, and it does not explain how or whether these chlorine radicals are formed from CFCs. If those ice crystals also catalyze the rupture of CFCs, why don’t we see a massive CFC degradation when we mix CFCs and ice?
As you can see, apart from learning French, English and Basque in my HS, I also learnt some critical thinking, oh, and two semesters of latin, almost forgot. They were compulsory at that time.
Wow, Phil., you just got schooled.
Mark
urederra May 27, 2015 at 6:08 pm
Molecules at a higher temperature have more thermal energy, always, No exceptions. And those molecules with higher thermal energy can collide faster because they travel at higher speeds and when they collide they do it with more energy. Always, NO exceptions. There are no reactions where the rate increases as temperatures drops.
A clear example of ‘a little knowledge is a dangerous thing’, there are reactions where the rate increases as temperature drops, it is a well known feature of hydrocarbon oxidation. Always dangerous to make such dogmatic statements as you did based on no expertise in the subject.
The only thing catalyst do is to provide a different reaction pathway with a lower activation energy. For this new reaction pathway same rule applies, higher temperature means faster degradation. And by the way, Professor Chipperfield does not mention PSC´s or catalysts.
In this case a different reaction pathway is created due to presence of the ice surface which causes much more O3 degradation than the homogeneous reaction, higher temperature causes the disappearance of the ice and therefore the end of the enhanced mechanism.
Let me also cite “juice”, who replied to one of my post above,
Juice
May 27, 2015 at 7:56 am
The poles are where the VERY SPECIFIC conditions exist to break down ozone. It’s very very cold (<-80C) and there are tiny ice crystals that act as catalysts in the reaction of ozone with chlorine radicals. Also, the lack of UV light causes ozone production to plummet in Spring. But this happens whether there are CFCs in the atmosphere or not. It’s the weather conditions in the stratosphere that cause the ozone depletion, not necessarily CFCs. If there were 100 years of ozone data, I’d be more convinced of the CFC hypothesis, but there are only about 30 years of data. Half of it is with CFC production and the other half is without. The halves look almost identical.
I mostly agree with Juice, specially the bolded part. I am not convinced at all about the catalytic reactions, though. ozone is a very unstable molecule and chlorine radicals are even more unstable, and monoatomic, the activation energy of that reaction must be very low,
And you’re both wrong, the lack of UV light does not causes ozone production to plummet in Spring the absence of UV light through the winter stops production and depletion of O3. The heterogeneous reactions on the PSCs produce molecular chlorine which doesn’t react with the O3 in darkness, as soon as the UV returns in the spring the Cl2 is photolysed to Cl radicals which rapidly enters the catalytic cycle and destroys the O3 leading to the ‘hole’. A key feature of a catalytic reaction is not just that the activation energy of the reaction is reduced but also the catalyst is not consumed by the reaction, which is the case with the Cl radicals in O3 degradation.
There is no much room for improvement, and it does not explain how or whether these chlorine radicals are formed from CFCs. If those ice crystals also catalyze the rupture of CFCs, why don’t we see a massive CFC degradation when we mix CFCs and ice?
I suggest you read up on the subject rather than making things up. For a start the ‘ice’ crystals are a mix of nitric acid and water not pure water. In the atmosphere in the absence of PSCs many of the Cl radicals are removed by reactions with HCl, OH, HO2 & NO2 thus sequestering them and reducing the destruction of the O3.
In the presence of PSCs the NO2 is removed (forming the HNO3 in the crystals) thus preventing the above sequestration and increasing the destruction of O3. Also they provide a heterogeneous site where HCl and ClONO2 can react to produce Cl2(g) and HNO3(ice). So instead of the sequestration of Cl in the winter you release stable Cl2 into the stratosphere and remove the sequestrating species. As a result Cl is released when UV returns.
As you can see, apart from learning French, English and Basque in my HS, I also learnt some critical thinking, oh, and two semesters of latin, almost forgot. They were compulsory at that time.
No amount of ‘critical thinking’ helps when you don’t know the subject!
Phil. You got this bit right:, “the lack of UV light does not causes ozone production to plummet in Spring the absence of UV light through the winter stops production and depletion of O3”.
And in this statement you touch on the dynamics that actually determine the issue. The critical dynamic is actually the reduction in the depletion of O3 due to a lower incidence of short wave ionising radiation from the sun in winter. But spatial relations are all important. Read on.
First lets look at the ozone free vortex that is due to a local depression of the stratopause over the Antarctic continent. The air here has virtually no ozone and an enhanced content of NOx because it is mesospheric in origin. It is pulled into a cone shaped depression by the vorticity of a very large high pressure cell co-extensive with the Antarctic continent, that extends from the surface through to the mesosphere. In winter, atmospheric pressure over Antarctica reaches a global peak. This vortex (simply a local expression of the mesosphere) is what is measured as ‘the ozone hole’. The absence of ozone here has nothing to do with chlorine chemistry. It has a lot to do with the process of photolysis. Above the stratopause temperature declines due to diminishing levels of O3 and increasing levels of NOx. This is normal atmospheric chemistry relating to the wave lengths that will split the smaller nitrogen and the larger oxygen molecule and the even larger O3 molecule. The stratosphere is an expression of the relative freedom from photolysis that allows ozone to proliferate below 1hPa. Its partial pressure is greatest at 10hPa. Its density is greatest at 30hPa and it is manifestly present in the atmosphere at lower altitudes in diminishing quantities strictly in accordance with prevailing atmospheric dynamics at different latitudes.
Second, lets look at the margins of Antarctica between 60-70° of latitude where ozone concentration peaks in October. It does so with monotonous regularity between Antarctica and Australia where surface pressure is lowest. In fact the entire zone 60-70° of latitude south is a very particular place where the enhanced presence of ozone, peaking in the month of October is associated with a marked trough in surface pressure. Nowhere else on the entire globe do we see such a severe trough in surface pressure, and its obviously ‘annular’ or ring like in its shape. The presence of ozone in the profile at this latitude is associated with convection throughout the atmospheric profile and a marked increase in wind speed between the surface (where wind speed is already extreme) and 10hPa in the middle stratosphere.Air temperature declines throughout the profile favouring convection. Ozone is excited by long wave radiation at 9-10um from the Earth itself provoking a local increase in the temperature of the air above 500hPa (5.5km) and especially noticeable as low as 250hPa. The presence of ozone drives convection. It is important for surface climate because the process of convection involves what we think of as the troposphere AND ALSO what we think of as the stratosphere. What goes up must come down. Ozone rich air descends in high pressure cells, all high pressure cells, GLOBALLY. The consequence of the descent of ozone rich air into the troposphere is local heating and a consequent loss of cloud cover with a consequent increase in surface temperature. Change the ozone content of the stratosphere and you change surface temperature.
I reiterate: Change the ozone content of an atmospheric column and geopotential height is observed to increase throughout the profile. The 500hPa level is representative. And as GPH increases, in terms of the surface, a coextensive area is seen to warm as more solar radiation reaches the surface.
If you are are as diligent in learning about atmospheric dynamics as you are your chemistry you will change your mind about the nature of the ozone hole. Here is a great place to start.http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-340.09,-31.31,410 Notice the circulation of the air in the south East Atlantic is anticlockwise from 500hPa through to 10hPa. Click on the word ‘Earth’ and toggle around to see wind speed, temperature, surface pressure and lots of other interesting stuff.
In terms of changing climate at the surface, the concentration of ozone in the Antarctic atmosphere (that is globally influential in determining surface temperature and the flux in the planetary winds) appears to be locked into a 200 year cycle that relates to the changing quantum of material that the sun flings into its extensive local environment.
In fact, what I am talking about here is the nature of the ‘annular modes’ of interannual, decadal and centennial climate variation. See: http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet/ao/ThompsonPapers/ThompsonWallaceJClim.pdf
This should be mainstream knowledge. That it isn’t reflects the inability of particular practitioners of particular branches of scientific endeavour, useful and worthy of respect as they manifestly are, to look beyond the end of their nose.
Erl, your theory doesn’t explain the dynamics of the disappearance of the Ozone.
Take a look at the sonde results:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=SPO&program=ozwv&type=vp
For example, the flight on 6 Sept 2014 showed peak ozone at ~17km of 16mPa.
By the 15th that peak has dropped to ~10 mPa between about 12 and 24 km but above and below that range it is unaffected. By the 26th there is now a pronounced minimum in that range ( ~2mPa), by the 29th the minimum hits ~0mPa. By 8th Oct there is no ozone between 15 and 18 km where a few weeks earlier there was a peak, above 23km there is still similar ozone concentrations as there was a month before (~8 mPa). This can not be explained by the descent of ozone-free air.
Hi Phil
There is nothing static about the vortex. Over the last 76 years the temperature of the polar cap at 10hPa has increased by 15°C in the month of October.Verify for yourself at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl The temperature of the air at 10hPa relates to its ozone content.
The temperature of the air at 10hPa at 70-90° south is, in the first instance, a function of the vorticity of the circulation. Over the last 76 years surface pressure over the polar cap in October has fallen by about 10hPa while the temperature of the stratosphere at an elevation of 10hpa increased by 15°C. Surface pressure is a function of density in turn driven by the relationship between the temperature of the air over the polar cap vis a vis the temperature of the air elsewhere across the globe.The laws of physics apply here as elsewhere. The warming occurs in the polar night and following it through to November and it relates to vortex dynamics as a function of easily understood structural factors, the presence of ozone in high concentration outside the vortex and the support offered to convection by the temperature profile below 5-10hpa.
On an annual basis the temperature of the polar cap over Antarctica increased strongly prior to 1978 and has been falling slowly since that time. But the behaviour of temperature at 10hPa over the polar cap is different by the month. Looking at decadal averages February through to May saw little increase in temperature prior to 1978 and a temperature decline occurred after that year in those months. The decline began in later decades where the temperature increase was more severe and has involved other months in a progression across the decades. But in October temperature continued to increase. I would expect to see a decline in the temperature of the Antarctic stratosphere in October in the next 7-10 years and an increase in surface pressure over that time. The ‘ozone hole’ over Antarctica in the month of October will increase in size as surface pressure increases.
Verify for yourself the relationship between surface pressure and the temperature of the stratosphere over the polar cap by comparing the daily Antarctic oscillation Index and the temperature of the air at any level above 50hPa.
Erl the 10hPa altitude is well above the level at which O3 is depleted in the spring so I don’t see its relevance.
Phil,
At any altitude the the dynamics within this high pressure cell dictate change at different orders of magnitude but according to precisely the same time schedule. The ozone content of the Antarctic stratosphere peaks at precisely the same time that we observe the most extensive vortex of relatively ozone free air. And the temperature of the stratosphere over the polar cap taken as a whole has seen the greatest increase in that month when the vortex is most extensive. That is the observable reality. But you wont see it unless you look at the history. Choose to be blind if you wish.
The sad thing is that those who have promoted this narrative about ozone depletion due to chlorofluorocarbons persist when what we see is a simple depression of the stratopause over Antarctica. The geography of the southern hemisphere dictates that the vortex will be strong and in consequence the entire southern hemisphere is an ‘ozone hole’ by comparison with the northern hemisphere. This is a NOx story, not a CFC story. The CFC narrative includes no reference to the physical forces responsible. It takes no note of the relationship between surface pressure and vorticity, between surface pressure and the ozone content of the stratosphere and the feedback relationship that dictates a fall in surface pressure as the ozone content of the polar atmosphere increases. The narrative points to ‘planetary waves’ rather than vortex shrinkage or displacement as an explanation for temperature increase over the polar cap.The narrative includes a description of the dynamics of surface pressure change (annular modes) but refuses to acknowledge the relationship between temperature, air density, surface pressure and the vorticity of the polar circulation.
It is now possible to measure NOx and ozone at all levels across the stratosphere and represent it pictorially as here: http://macc.aeronomie.be/4_NRT_products/5_Browse_plots/1_Snapshot_maps/index.php?src=MACC_o-suite&l=TC%20.
The diagrams enable us to view the change in the Antarctic stratosphere week by week. It is instructive to look at the transition that occurs in November as the processes that dictate the ozone content of the stratosphere manifest in the Arctic and while they evaporate over the Antarctic. Choose the height and the tracer that you wish to monitor. There is an ozone hole in the Arctic and it appears when surface pressure is adequate to develop the required vorticity in the circulation …and its there even today but weak, reflecting the summer pattern.
The existence of a ‘vortex’ is not in doubt however your mechanism is not capable of explaining the actual evolution of the ‘ozone hole’, explain why O3 is only depleted between 23km and 12km, not above or below?
Phil,
The data that you refer to relates to ozone and temperature measurements at the US base at the South Pole. This is ‘little picture stuff’. There is a disconnect between the temperature that is logged and the measured ozone content. This tells me that the air is moving quickly.Its the very centre of the vortex. The vortex itself moves latitudinally while the vertical profile is in a state of constant flux. I would say these measurements indicate a dynamic situation. It would be like measuring the smoke content in a column of air above a fire.
Gaze at the sky and observe the way that clouds change in shape in a matter of minutes.
In other words: In would not seek to change public policy on the basis of measurements such as these.
erl happ May 30, 2015 at 5:06 pm
There is a disconnect between the temperature that is logged and the measured ozone content.
Explain what this is based on please.
Phil, If your check NCEP/GFS analyses and Forecasts at:http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/
Ozone content, geopotential height and atmospheric temperature are closely related. Higher ozone levels give rise to higher temperature and greater heights. Ozone heats the air via absorption of inrared at 9-10um in the peak of of the radiation band emitted by the Earth.
Each day at precisely 08:00 – I must say the words “Klaatu barada nikto”
If I don’t – the universe will pass out of existence!
The fact that the Universe is still here and quite visible… is ample proof, to any skeptics, that their children, and continued existence depends on me. No thanks required – just money. GK
[The mods need to know which 8:00 oclock. 8<) .mod]
As I recall, the Montreal Protocol that banned Freon only passed because they promised that banning it will get rid of the ozone hole. Well, it did not happen, not even when more tinkering was introduced. The promise that banning Freon will get rid of the ozone hole was a false promise, introduced to fool the public.. They obviously got their science wrong and it is time to admit that and cancel out the Montreal Protocol.
This is setting a precedent.
I predict that “global warming” science will tell us, when no warming occurs!, that their models show if CO2 levels had not been reduced then catastrophe would have occurred.
Climate Science is already adjusting the temperature record to fit the models.
If you go all the way back to the 1970s, an article appeared in “Science” (AAAS) that explained ozone depletion was occurring because of variations in ultraviolet output by the Sun. I have it downloaded somewhere. Here it is, Volume 192 page 555, 7 May 1976. Eleven-Year Variation in Polar Ozone and
Stratospheric-Ion Chemistry. This appeared in Science again in Vol 204 page 1304 “Ozone and Temperature Trends Associated with the 11-Year Solar Cycle”. 11 Jun 1979.
Just sayin.
Yes the observed fluctuations in O3 prior to the drop due to CFCs did correlate with the solar cycle.
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/images/halley_toms_ozone.png
It was after the 70s that the CFCs dramatically increased (and the O3 dropped).
http://www.theozonehole.com/images/cfc.ht42.jpg
Those charts are on a scale of parts per TRILLION yet you say that “CFCs dramatically increased”. It looks to me like they went from one incredibly tiny fraction of the atmosphere to another incredibly tiny fraction. If the scale was parts per billion (which is still extraordinarily small) you’d barely be able to see a change.
A 500% increase is dramatic.
Not when the starting value is so tiny. This is a perfect example of how using percentages can be extremely misleading.
No your point is a perfect example of a total lack of understanding of science.
For example, your blood contains about 4X10^-8 moles/litre of H+, double it and you’d be dead!
Something I said back in the 1980s:
1. The NH and SH have two almost completely separated atmospheres. The rising air flow in the Intertropical Convergence Zone and the pattern of the air flows in the Hadley cells mean that almost no air gets exhanged across the Equator.
Applying this to the possible flow of CFCs from the cities of the NH all the way down to Antarctica means that VERY little of the CFCs can even get to the Antarctic.
2. The CFCs were being released in those NH cities predominantyl, and guess what those cities had a lot of back in the 1980s? (as they still do now) OZONE ALERTS. TOO MUC OZONE. Right where the CFCs were being used most. Of courses, those CFCs ignored those easy-to-get-to ozone molecules in the cities in the NH – preferring to travel about 13,000 km to the South Pole instead (while running the barrier of the ITCZ).
And you know WHAT? NOBODY ever looked to see how those CFCs were interacting in the cities.
For me, that all was Green Lie #3. CAGW for me was #4.