Atmospheric concentration of an ozone destroying chemical drops mysteriously

ozone_11sept2014[1]
Ozone at the South Pole, Sep 11, 2014
From the “possible measurement error” department.

Larry O’Hanlon (via AGU blogs) writes:

Something strange has happened to the atmospheric concentration of a newly discovered, human-made, ozone-destroying gas: it has suddenly dropped and nobody knows why.

The gas, HCFC-133a, is a type of hydrochlorofluorocarbon, ozone-destroying compounds used in some industrial processes, including the manufacturing of refrigerants. The use of HCFCs, which are also powerful greenhouse gases, is restricted under the Montreal Protocol. A study last year first identified HCFC-133a as one of four previously undetected human-made gases in the atmosphere that are contributing to destruction of the ozone layer, but the source of HCFC-133a remains a mystery.

“This is enormous, how quickly the trend reversed,” said Martin Vollmer of the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology in Dubendorf, Switzerland. But instead of deepening the mystery of HCFC-133a’s sources, the abrupt change offers new clues, Vollmer said.New measurements show that after a rapid increase of the compound in the atmosphere of the Northern Hemisphere from 0.13 parts per trillion (ppt) in 2000 to 0.50 ppt in 2013, the concentration suddenly dropped to about 0.44 ppt by early 2015. This drop in concentration is equivalent to a 50 percent decline in global emissions percent of the gas: from 3,000 metric tons (3,300 US tons) in 2011 to about 1,500 metric tons (1,700 tons)  in 2014, according to the new study.

More here: http://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2015/10/06/ozone-destroyer-drops-mysteriously/

The paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065846/abstract

Abrupt reversal in emissions and atmospheric abundance of HCFC-133a (CF3CH2Cl)

Abstract

Hydrochlorofluorocarbon HCFC-133a (CF3CH2Cl) is an anthropogenic compound whose consumption for emissive use is restricted under the Montreal Protocol. A recent study showed rapidly increasing atmospheric abundances and emissions. We report that, following this rise, the atmospheric abundance and emissions have declined sharply in the past three years. We find a Northern Hemisphere HCFC-133a increase from 0.13 ppt (dry air mole fraction in parts-per-trillion) in 2000 to 0.50 ppt in 2012–mid-2013 followed by an abrupt reversal to ∼0.44 ppt by early 2015. Global emissions derived from these observations peaked at 3.1 kt in 2011, followed by a rapid decline of ∼0.5 kt yr−2 to 1.5 kt yr−1 in 2014. Sporadic HCFC-133a pollution events are detected in Europe from our high-resolution HCFC-133a records at three European stations, and in Asia from samples collected in Taiwan. European emissions are estimated to be <0.1 kt yr−1 although emission hotspots were identified in France.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
191 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 7, 2015 2:22 pm

Somehow I suspect they are going to wish they had double and triple checked their techniques and maths; big abrupt changes without apparent cause rarely stand up to further scrutiny.

Geoff
October 7, 2015 2:27 pm
Reply to  Geoff
October 7, 2015 4:00 pm

Indecent exposure? Have they been flashing the penguins?

asybot
Reply to  ATheoK
October 7, 2015 5:21 pm

Flashing any thing at -25C at anything must be alcohol induced ( I do remember my skiing and college days but didn’t do any apparent damage I still have kids and grand kids (LOL).

RoHa
Reply to  ATheoK
October 8, 2015 2:56 am

Say it, I would have thought that in Antarctica you would only be able to flash once.

RoHa
Reply to  ATheoK
October 8, 2015 2:59 am

Bugger! “Say it” was supposed to be “asybot”. Blasted correction software.

Paul
Reply to  ATheoK
October 8, 2015 4:27 am

“I still have kids and grand kids ”
Kids I could see, but you shouldn’t have much input with grandkids, no?

ozspeaksup
Reply to  ATheoK
October 8, 2015 4:48 am

try bored n mateless and with net access for date etc sites..
a single female friend….enlightened me as to why she was online so often…with pics.
ooooohhh dear.;-/

latecommer2014
Reply to  ATheoK
October 8, 2015 5:37 am

Any exposure decent or not could be your last

Paul Mackey
Reply to  ATheoK
October 8, 2015 5:47 am

Thats very brave in the antartic!

Jeff
Reply to  ATheoK
October 8, 2015 12:14 pm

Gives a whole new meaning to the term “flash frozen”…

DC Cowboy
Editor
Reply to  Geoff
October 8, 2015 3:49 am

This is not new. I worked at NSF in IT Security and part of my responsibility was the servers & network at McMurdo, Palmer, & McMurdo. Because of my ‘security’ responsibilities I was made aware of any ‘security’ related issues & worked with the IG. The drinking & fights were common when I was at NSF from 2009-2012. I remember one at the South Pole that resulted in having to emergency evac a gentleman who got into a drunken brawl over a woman.

Doug Danhoff
Reply to  Geoff
October 8, 2015 5:36 am

Any indecent exposure in Antarctica could be your last

E.M.Smith
Editor
October 7, 2015 2:34 pm

Ah, they blame France… Must be the making of refrigerants por le vin…..

Reply to  E.M.Smith
October 7, 2015 10:30 pm

Excessive cooling of alcoholic drinks is an American vice. The rest of us drink room-temperature wine, whisky and warm, flat beer. 🙂

Reply to  Kevin Lohse
October 7, 2015 10:46 pm

What does the temperature matter?!

Dahlquist
Reply to  Kevin Lohse
October 7, 2015 11:41 pm

Room temp. dark red wine is okay for flavor. Rose’s need a chilling for flavor. Whiskey needs room temp for tasting subtleties. Warm, flat beer sucks. Get it right you stinkin’ Limeys.

Patrick
Reply to  Kevin Lohse
October 8, 2015 1:18 am

“Dahlquist
October 7, 2015 at 11:41 pm
Warm, flat beer sucks. Get it right you stinkin’ Limeys.”
Say what? Some of the best beers you can get are warm and flat, and they will have you flat on your back in the gutter in no time. I should know, I have tried it a few times *ahem*. None of that cold fizzy stuff. Get it right yankie!

Hivemind
Reply to  Kevin Lohse
October 8, 2015 5:33 am

Room temperature? Flat beer? Philistines !!!

Gerry, England
Reply to  Kevin Lohse
October 8, 2015 5:44 am

Cellar temperature is correct for the majority of ales.

Reply to  Kevin Lohse
October 8, 2015 10:13 am

An American Lager doesn’t do well warm and flat, it needs to be 40F/5C or less. Most European lagers can be at room temperature, which is 55F/10C as can any ale. When I was in Germany back in the late ’70s the locals were drinking the cooler traditional room temperature beer, but most places would dunk a bottle in hot water for customer wanting beer at ambient temperature. Of course there was always Tucher Bräu a banana tasting brew I consider bad at any temperature.

RoHa
Reply to  E.M.Smith
October 8, 2015 3:00 am

That’s what France is for, isn’t it? What the point of having the place if we can’t blame things on it?

commieBob
October 7, 2015 3:01 pm

This drop in concentration is equivalent to a 50 percent decline in global emissions percent of the gas:

A quick google gives:

(HFC-134a precursor, trifluoroethylating agent) link

This is an industrial chemical, so it looks like it isn’t dumped into the atmosphere in any quantity. I have a hunch that ‘they’ got the chemistry wrong.

Reply to  commieBob
October 8, 2015 5:29 am

This is the AGU link’s finding:
It is known that when you make HFC-134a, the ozone-destroying HCFC-133a is an intermediate product, Vollmer said. And since HFC-134a is being mass produced, it’s a likely source for leaking HCFC-133a into the atmosphere, he said.
“That’s most likely the biggest source of HCFC-133a currently,” Vollmer said. “But it’s not known how much leaks out. We expected HCFC-133a to grow rapidly in the atmosphere because of the enormous and growing global demand and production of HFC-134a, but we found the opposite. One of our speculations is that there are one, two or three factories that have been grossly emitted HCFC-133a but were cleaned up.”

michael hart
Reply to  Phil.
October 8, 2015 10:36 am

That was my guess too.

Jeff
Reply to  Phil.
October 8, 2015 12:21 pm

“It’s a likely source” quickly followed by “it’s not known”. Then “we expected” and “but we found the opposite”.
OK, on the one hand, they admitted they were wrong. On the other hand, the assumptions they made
shouldn’t have been made in the first place.
The current crop of refrigerants flowing about are not terribly efficient, but are terribly flammable. Despite the apparent irony, I don’t want to have to go downstairs and try to recover the damage caused by an exploding freezer (even if everything within got properly cooked). Bring back my Freon!

Dodgy Geezer
October 7, 2015 3:06 pm

The Montreal Protocol for removing CFCs from the atmosphere was based on models and assertions – little or no evidence. Like AGW, it is almost certainly based on incorrect science, and has cost humanity a lot of money.

les
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
October 7, 2015 4:11 pm

That is quite untrue… In a 1973 Chemistry class a visiting professor told of the results of testing then being done on Ozone levels and the effects of CFC’s. No “computer models” – this was hard-nosed science at its’ best. Only recently did I throw out those old chemistry notes in which he detailed the processes involved, residence time, etc. His warning to our class in 1973 was that If action was not taken, the ozone hole would grow and ozone depletion would result in skin cancer and other exposure problems for the wider environment. He predictions proved completely right with respect to the effects he described. While late in coming (the world got in gear only when the effects became obvious) the Montreal protocols were a healthy step towards incentivizing other forms of refrigerants – which were always available, but unused.

scarletmacaw
Reply to  les
October 7, 2015 5:33 pm

So you were suckered in too.
CFCs do not destroy ozone. The theory was that chlorine released from CFCs in the upper atmosphere can destroy ozone. But there are two problems with that theory: 1) chlorine from natural sources reach the upper atmosphere and always have 2) CFCs are heavy and tend to settle downward in air, especially the very thin air of the stratosphere.
And finally, no one has gotten skin cancer from ozone depletion, whether natural or anthropogenic. The only depletion observed has been over the polar regions. People don’t live there. And there are no observations of an absence of an ozone hole, so it may have always been there to begin with.

Reply to  les
October 7, 2015 5:56 pm

scarlet macaw you’re talking through your hat! Chlorine from CFCs does destroy O3, CFCs do not settle in the atmosphere, natural chlorine predominantly washes out of the atmosphere and the CFC generated Cl dominates in the polar stratosphere. Ozone depletion is observed outside the polar region and the ozone ‘hole’ has shown substantial growth since the 1950s.

AndyE
Reply to  les
October 7, 2015 7:06 pm

“les” – I absolutely agree. But a fair few commentators to our WUWT blog have persistently closed minds and cannot recognise hard-nosed science when they see it. They share that state of mind with a lot of warmists, by the way.

charles nelson
Reply to  les
October 7, 2015 8:13 pm

Down below Phil makes the following statement.
“Ozone depletion is observed outside the polar region and the ozone ‘hole’ has shown substantial growth since the 1950s.”
Maybe Phil knows different but I was fairly sure that the first satellite was Sputnik ( an orbiting bleeper) which went into orbit in 1957?
Maybe Phil could give us the references for the satellite system that was observing Ozone depletion in the 1950s?

David Ball
Reply to  les
October 7, 2015 8:15 pm

les needs to support his assertions.
Only recently did I throw out those old chemistry notes in which he detailed the processes involved, residence time, etc. His warning to our class in 1973 was that If action was not taken, the ozone hole would grow and ozone depletion would result in skin cancer and other exposure problems for the wider environment.
http://drtimball.com/2011/holes-in-the-recent-arctic-ozone-hole-story/
Or even better;
http://drtimball.com/2014/un-global-warming-propaganda-campaign-return-to-perceived-success-indicates-desperation/

Dodgy Geezer
Reply to  les
October 8, 2015 1:26 am

What you are describing is the exact equivalent of CO2 experiments where a bottle is filled with the gas and it is shown to get warmer than a control bottle of air in the lab. No one denies that this happens under lab conditions – no one denies that CFCs can react with Ozone under lab conditions.
But what is happening up in the stratosphere is much harder to measure, and very little actual observations have been taken. A couple of U2 flights were made to collect samples – one showed diminished Ozone with increased CFCs, the other showed extensive Ozone concentrations with increased CFCs.
The ban was not based on comprehensive observation. It was based on model predictions, almost exactly like the CO2 ban. And it only came about because it was convenient to the industry, who were looking for a reason to use new refrigerants which could be kept under patent for longer…

Alan the Brit
Reply to  les
October 8, 2015 2:39 am

Forgive me! I don’t know what specifics he warned you & your classmates of, but there is know ozone “hole”, it is a thinning, & there isn’t just one, there are several, & I think you can look this up on this esteemed blogsite! The likely reason that if there is an increase in skin cancers, particulalry in the developed world, it is more likely a result of the penchant for young people walking around semi-naked as soon as the sun comes out! We know that excessive exposure to UV can cause skin cancers! AND the BIG question that has NEVER been answered satisfactorily, is “How do we know it hasn’t always been there?”.

dennisambler
Reply to  les
October 8, 2015 3:15 am

“If action was not taken, the ozone hole would grow and ozone depletion would result in skin cancer and other exposure problems for the wider environment. He predictions proved completely right with respect to the effects he described.”
How many people live in Antarctica?
The CFC story is a parallel for the CO2 story and was another EPA “cause celebre”. Claims of dramatic changes to the atmosphere were made; time was running out, the world was in danger and it could only be saved by “Global Action”.
For public consumption it is usually stated that the Ozone hole was first discovered in 1985, by British scientists Joseph Farman, Brian Gardiner, and Jonathan Shanklin of the British Antarctic Survey, although NASA stake a claim for two years earlier.
However on the BAS website it states that they have been monitoring ozone in the Antarctic since 1956. One wonders why, in all that time, they found no problem, when CFC’s had been in use for refrigeration since the 1930’s. Suddenly, in 1985, it was “discovered” for the first time.
BAS web site data for 2009-10 reports that:
“Ozone values dropped, to reach a minimum of around 125 DU (60% depletion) in late September, (Antarctic spring). The lowest daily value measured was 107 DU on October 1. This minimum value is similar to those recorded each October since the early 1990s.”
It is also similar to those in the spring of 1958 at the French Antarctic Observatory at Dumont d’Urville [opposite side of the South Pole from Halley Bay], when Rigaud and Leroy [quoted in Annales Geophysicae (November, 1990)] reported atmospheric ozone levels as low as 110 DU.
In August 2006, the WMO issued this statement: “Antarctic ozone forecasted to recover in 2065”
“A new scientific assessment, released Friday by the World Meteorological Organization, WMO and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) says that the stratospheric ozone layer that protects life on Earth from excessive solar radiation will recover five to 15 years later than previously expected.
Because of special conditions within the Antarctic vortex (a natural cyclone of super-cold, super-fast winds), the Antarctic ozone hole is expected to recur regularly for another two decades.”
So it has a large natural component? The goal posts will continually move, as they have with, for example, Arctic ice. Check out volcanic sources of CFC’s at http://cfc.geologist-1011.net

Reply to  les
October 8, 2015 4:54 am

Ozone is not getting destroyed.
It is simply getting redistributed on a seasonal basis at the end of the winter from the Antarctic polar vortex to the 60S latitude.
During the Ozone hole season in September and October, the 60S latitude has the HIGHEST ozone numbers af any place in the world at any time of the year.
By November, the 60S latitude and the Antarctic polar vortex regions go back to normal, the Ozone moves back in, and there is no hole and no excess at 60S.

Reply to  les
October 8, 2015 5:06 am

dennisambler October 8, 2015 at 3:15 am
However on the BAS website it states that they have been monitoring ozone in the Antarctic since 1956. One wonders why, in all that time, they found no problem, when CFC’s had been in use for refrigeration since the 1930’s. Suddenly, in 1985, it was “discovered” for the first time.

Production from 1930 to the 1960s was negligible compared with post 1970 so no observable effect earlier.
http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/global-cfc-production_83db

MarkW
Reply to  les
October 8, 2015 6:06 am

There was never any observed ozone depletion. They measured ground level UV and assumed that the sun’s output of UV was constant, therefore any ground level changes must be caused by ozone changes.
Well the sun’s output of UV isn’t constant. It varies by as much as 10% over the solar cycle.

MarkW
Reply to  les
October 8, 2015 6:07 am

AndyE: Ah yes, the old, any one who doesn’t agree with me doesn’t agree with science line.
How troll.

Reply to  les
October 8, 2015 6:23 am

MarkW October 8, 2015 at 6:06 am
There was never any observed ozone depletion. They measured ground level UV and assumed that the sun’s output of UV was constant, therefore any ground level changes must be caused by ozone changes.

Completely false, they used the Dobson meter which was specifically designed to measure atmospheric O3.
The instrument measures the ratio of two UV wavelengths, one absorbed by O3 and the other not, specifically 305 nm and 325 nm. Thus any systematic variation in UV is corrected for, if you don’t know the subject it’s better to not pontificate on it Mark!

urederra
Reply to  les
October 8, 2015 1:01 pm

Phil.
October 8, 2015 at 8:31 am
Not true O3 does not decay at the S Pole in winter when there is no UV, it decays after the ‘sunrise’ in the Austral spring, i.e. now.

Yes true, ozone does decay, It has a half life that depends on temperature and pressure.

Air
Temp (°C) Half live
-50 3 months
-35 18 days
-25 8 days
20 3 days
120 1,5 hours
250 1,5 seconds
Read more: http://www.lenntech.es/biblioteca/ozone-decomposition.htm#ixzz3o0XfbqlU

At -50º the half life is 3 months, and more at reduced presure, which accounts for the lag observed.
Besides, the hole dissapears in mid-late November, because ozone is formed when UV light breaks down O2 into two O radicals which react with other 2 O2 molecules. And if this reaction has been running since there is oxygen in the atmosphere, back 1.5 BILLION years ago, how come there is so little ozone? If every year enough ozone is formed to replenish the “hole”, how much would it be right now if ozone, as you say does not decay, but accumulates over 1.5 billion years?
NOPE, ozone does decay, naturally.

urederra
Reply to  les
October 8, 2015 1:07 pm

Oh, And I take for granted that you agree with my other points that you quoted but not refuted.
Aboriginal australians/newzealanders don’t get skin cancer as often because the melanin in their skin protects them from UV light. It is a defense mechanism against UV light that has been there since millenia, just like the ozone “hole”.

Reply to  les
October 10, 2015 9:00 pm

Les, I think your memory is confused. 1973 was when Lovelock published in Nature of his findings on CFC concentrations as he traveled from the UK south to Antarctica. Lovelock suggested that all the CFCs ever emitted were still in the atmosphere (very stable molecules). Rowland was interested in that idea and his student Molina’s theoretical investigations agreed with Lovelock’s empirically based speculation. And that is how we got the idea that CFCs transported chlorine to the stratosphere and the UV up there zapped out the chlorine — the only sink for CFCs. Thus started the spray can panic in the USA that resulted in the ban in 1978. Then the science caught up, and CFC effect was assess to be not so bad and by 1985 it seemed like it was all over. The UN talks were going nowhere.
The ozone hole refers to a dip in the ozone levels inside the Antarctic vortex just before it breaks up in the austral spring. A depletion trend in October over Halley Bay since the late 1970s was announce by the British Antarctic Survey (Farman et al) in 1985. The US satellite folks were kicking themselves that they did not picked it up. One reason they did not is that they were used to extremely low results over Antarctica at that time of the year.
The Halley Bay ground-based data had been collected since 1956 when Dobson sent down one of his spectrometers for the Geo-Physical Year. Immediately he notices an anomaly. In the northern hemisphere, ozone levels increase in the Winter and the further you go north from the equator the higher this peak. Dobson had early good measurements from inside the Arctic circle at Spitsbergen that showing a huge peak in ozone in the winter. Upon these and other data on seasonal trends he speculated on Stratospheric circulation (Brewer-Dobson circulation). The same seasonal trend occurs as you move south during winter — until you reach the Antarctic vortex which blocks the stratospheric pole-ward flow of the ozone. Dobson first picked this up in the Halley Bay data and explained it correctly in the early 1960s. The Dobson’s ‘Antarctic anomaly’ and the additional spring time trend picked up by Farman are both defined by the polar vortex. It is convenient for some propaganda to confuse Dobson’s Antarctic anomaly with Farman’s spring time dip. And the scare that the hole might ‘spread’ outside the vortex to Australia etc is completely unfounded.

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
October 8, 2015 12:49 am

They have been calling for disaster over ozone for decades, but the skin cancer epidemic that this assertion guarantees never materialized. Norwegians and Greenlanders still soak up rays whenever they get the chance, and skin cancer has not increased a bit.

Reply to  Michael Gersh
October 8, 2015 3:50 am

skin cancer has not increased a bit
Care to support that assertion? Latest WHO figures I saw showed NZ with the highest skin cancer death rate.

DC Cowboy
Editor
Reply to  Michael Gersh
October 8, 2015 3:59 am

But, don’t you see? The Montreal Protocol saved us from all that. Reminds of the story about a young man who was touting (at a good price) an elephant repellent in a European country. When told by the incredulous audience, “”But, there isn’t a wild Elephant within a thousand miles”. He responded, “You see? It works.”

scarletmacaw
Reply to  Michael Gersh
October 8, 2015 7:22 am

Phil: deaths from skin cancer are from melanoma. UV has not been found to increase melanoma risk, although it does increase risk for the other two types of skin cancer.
And you are wrong about natural chlorine. Even the believers state that natural chlorine accounts for about half of the chlorine in the stratosphere, so it’s not insignificant even if you swallow the party line.

urederra
Reply to  Michael Gersh
October 8, 2015 8:10 am

Phil.
October 8, 2015 at 3:50 am
skin cancer has not increased a bit
Care to support that assertion? Latest WHO figures I saw showed NZ with the highest skin cancer death rate.

Yeah, skin cancer affecting mostly white people, but not aboriginals who had dark skin with lots of melanin. Melanin protects them form UV radiation. Aboriginals have dark skin because the ozone “hole” has always been there.
Ozone concentration is in dynamic equilibrium at the poles, formed when and where light strikes and naturally decaying when there is not. It always been that wayThe atmosphere has oxygen since 1.5 billion years ago. Ozone has been formed from oxygen since then, If it wasn’t for the natural decay, ozone would have accumulated in the lower atmosphere. It hasn’t, because it is very reactive, and unstable. Unlike the CFCs which are so stable and harmless that they were used in astma inhalers.

Reply to  Michael Gersh
October 8, 2015 8:24 am
Reply to  Michael Gersh
October 8, 2015 8:31 am

urederra October 8, 2015 at 8:10 am
Phil.
October 8, 2015 at 3:50 am
skin cancer has not increased a bit
“Care to support that assertion? Latest WHO figures I saw showed NZ with the highest skin cancer death rate.”
Yeah, skin cancer affecting mostly white people, but not aboriginals who had dark skin with lots of melanin. Melanin protects them form UV radiation. Aboriginals have dark skin because the ozone “hole” has always been there.
Ozone concentration is in dynamic equilibrium at the poles, formed when and where light strikes and naturally decaying when there is not.

Not true O3 does not decay at the S Pole in winter when there is no UV, it decays after the ‘sunrise’ in the Austral spring, i.e. now.
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/statistics/meteorology_ytd_sh.png

urederra
Reply to  Michael Gersh
October 8, 2015 1:15 pm

Phil.
October 8, 2015 at 8:31 am
Not true O3 does not decay at the S Pole in winter when there is no UV, it decays after the ‘sunrise’ in the Austral spring, i.e. now.

Yes true, ozone does decay in winter and in the summer because is unstable, It has a half life that depends on temperature and pressure.

Air
Temp (°C) Half live
-50 3 months
-35 18 days
-25 8 days
20 3 days
120 1,5 hours
250 1,5 seconds
Read more: http://www.lenntech.es/biblioteca/ozone-decomposition.htm#ixzz3o0XfbqlU

At -50º the half life is 3 months, and more at reduced presure, which accounts for the lag observed.
Besides, the hole dissapears in mid-late November, because ozone is formed when UV light breaks down O2 into two O radicals which react with other 2 O2 molecules. And if this reaction has been running since there is oxygen in the atmosphere, back 1.5 BILLION years ago, how come there is so little ozone? If every year enough ozone is formed to replenish the “hole”, how much would it be right now if ozone, as you say does not decay, but accumulates over 1.5 billion years?
NOPE, ozone does decay, naturally.
Oh, And I take for granted that you agree with my other points that you quoted but not refuted.
Aboriginal australians/newzealanders don’t get skin cancer as often because the melanin in their skin protects them from UV light. It is a defense mechanism against UV light that has been there since millenia, just like the ozone “hole”.
(sorry for posting in the wrong thread)

Reply to  Michael Gersh
October 8, 2015 2:08 pm

urederra,
stratospheric air around the South Pole in winter is below -80°C, I don’t expect much destruction at that temperature during Austral winter…
Most of the depletion is in early spring and is a quite difficult to follow (but laboratory reproduced) chain of events on the surface of ice crystals (of stratospheric clouds) where ClONO2 condenses. When the sun restarts to shine ClONO2 is split and Cl radicals and ClO are formed which are the chemical that react with ozone.
There still are doubts because one of the theoretical intermediate reactions needs far more time than thought, but the main result seems to be confirmed.

scarletmacaw
Reply to  Michael Gersh
October 8, 2015 3:39 pm

Phil: your link is to a theoretical study which shows mutations caused by UV. No surprise there, and no surprise that a true believer would cite theory when reality disagrees. There has been nothing showing a melanoma link with UV in real people.

beng135
Reply to  Michael Gersh
October 9, 2015 7:22 am

phildot sez:

Latest WHO figures I saw showed NZ with the highest skin cancer death rate.

You were behaving reasonably on this thread, but then went and produced that zinger. Not only does the ozone hole pretty much never get to NZ, the ozone levels are often higher than normal there as it’s in the high-ozone band that forms around the hole periphery.

Menicholas
October 7, 2015 3:09 pm

“Atmospheric concentration of an ozone destroying chemical drops mysteriously”
Look, it was pretty bad for a while there, I admit…but I got me some Gas-X, and everything is much better now.
Cancel the fire alarm.
Call off the end of the world.

Rascal
Reply to  Menicholas
October 7, 2015 8:12 pm

“The only depletion observed has been over the polar regions.”
Has anybody considered the possibility of a relation to the Earth’s magnetic field?

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Rascal
October 8, 2015 3:03 am

My thoughts exactly, but is there an issue with the North Pole?

MarkW
Reply to  Rascal
October 8, 2015 6:11 am

Since ozone is created by sunlight, it’s more likely that 3 months of darkness plays a part.

DD More
Reply to  Rascal
October 8, 2015 8:59 am

The Magnetic Behavior of Ozone
The angle through which the top of the wire had to be twisted to restore the bar to its original position in the presence of the field was measured in vacuum, in oxygen, and in two samples of ozonized oxygen. The torque in oxygen was much less than in vacuum, and in both ozone-oxygen mixtures it was still less, and was the least in the sample.of higher concentration. Oxygen is paramagnetic and, therefore, from these data it appears that ozone is still more so. Quantitatively, assuming with Becquerel a value of ten volume per cent for his most concentrated sample, one finds the volume susceptibility of ozone to be more than three times that of oxygen.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1085222/pdf/pnas01836-0010.pdf
But that was in 1927.

ferdberple
Reply to  Rascal
October 8, 2015 11:40 am

Has anybody considered the possibility of a relation to the Earth’s magnetic field?
===================
https://twitter.com/alroker/status/420704553445883905/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
see the portion circled in yellow. the polar vortex has two centers of rotation, roughly aligned with the two magnetic north poles. See “total intensity” diagram in the link below:
http://geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/mag_fld/arctics-en.php

Reply to  Menicholas
October 9, 2015 7:28 pm

I thought that the “ozone destroying” part of the “man made” part required the genesis of free Chlorine gas in the stratosphere. I seem to recall that the theoretical reaction to achieve that free Chlorine, when tested, had never been actually been produced in the laboratory and remained a plausible but unproven proposition

October 7, 2015 3:11 pm

And of course the real ‘destroyer’ of the ozone layer is the antarctic vortex.

MarkW
Reply to  James Hastings-Trew
October 8, 2015 6:11 am

Shhhh, you’ll upset the trolls

Matt G
October 7, 2015 3:19 pm

The hidden secret that the industry didn’t want you to know and yes they occur naturally too.
“One of Ian Plimer’s misquotes happens to be heavily underpinned by numerous scientific measurements and practical experimentation. Although commonly regarded as not naturally occuring, halocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) do occur naturally and are emitted from volcanoes. This applies to both the environment and the atmosphere. As a consequence, we can expect that volcanic activity has a much higher impact on ozone depletion than previously thought.”
http://cfc.geologist-1011.net/
“In his book, a short history of planet earth, Plimer (2001, p. 200) reports that in 1991, Mt Pinatubo released massive quantities of CFCs. Interestingly, nobody disagreed and the book won Plimer the Reed New Holland 2002 Eureka Science Book Prize. However, when Plimer (2009) went on to make a similar statement, this time in Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science, this statement was given quite a different reception.”
The rise in CFC’s we saw were likely caused by volcanic eruptions before or around the time.

Reply to  Matt G
October 8, 2015 3:43 am

The source that you quote claimed that CFCs were created naturally yet the measurements it referred to showed that no CFCs were formed naturally (it appears that he doesn’t understand what a CFC is?). The measurements of halocarbons (not CFCs) were put into context:
“fluxes of 1.7 × 105 g/yr CH3Cl and 82 g/yr CCl4 are attained for Nicaragua. Scaled up to the estimated global SO2 flux, this translates to hypothetical global fluxes of 5.6 × 1^6 g/yr CH3Cl and 2.7 × 10^3 g/yr CCl4. These volcanic fluxes are negligible compared to global anthropogenic and natural emissions of about 3 × 10^12 g/yr CH3Cl and 2 × 10^10 g/yr CCl4”.

Reply to  Phil.
October 8, 2015 12:12 pm

Phil, as usual you are quite right about CFC’s and the ozone hole, but don’t underestimate the CH3Cl production from the decay of organics by fungi. Fungi need strong chemicals to destroy lignin, the glue for cellulose in any wood, which they need as food. CH3Cl is emitted as byproduct and the quantities are high enough to reach the stratosphere, although most is destroyed before that. If I remember well the total release was around 4 million tons/year. Human contribution for that chemical less than 1%…
Found a reference in its release in potatoes: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2588638?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents in the introduction.
CH3Cl is thought to be responsible for about 10% of the current ozone depletion, thus still 90% caused by human-made (H)CFC’s.

Reply to  Phil.
October 8, 2015 12:57 pm

Chlorine and Fluorine are halogen gasses so CFCs would be included in the broader category of halocarbons. As chlorine-monoxide is the guilty party in ozone depletion, any chlorinated compound is likely to have some contribution as long as the chlorine radical is released by UV exposure.

Matt G
Reply to  Phil.
October 8, 2015 12:59 pm

In Nicaragua there has been only small eruptions so can’t compare to much larger ones around the world. Natural sources are estimated to be much larger only on a yearly basis, but only because large eruptions come and go only once in numerous years or even decades for generally very short periods.
“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.

BLACK PEARL
October 7, 2015 3:30 pm

I’ve always wondered about the ozone hole Has it always been there and a totally natural occurrence ?

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  BLACK PEARL
October 7, 2015 3:49 pm

No one really knows. About the time people were starting to look into ozone was the time the satellites went up and were able to get wide-area measurements. The saw a hole, and everyone went ape-s**t. The rest is history, and hardly anyone has looked back.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  D.J. Hawkins
October 8, 2015 4:58 am

and the panic n hype made ENRON ken lay and the rest of em a motza of money on ozone abatement shares
cost society billions in waste of throwing out perfectly good fridges n aircons, replacing car aircons..and removing the best fire extinguishers for certain fires.

Reply to  D.J. Hawkins
October 13, 2015 8:22 am

The problem form the beginning has been quantifying the radical Chlorine in the stratosphere. Stable anthropogenic fluorocarbons and halo-carbons undoubtedly reach the stratosphere but so do chlorine-containing aerosols from volcanic eruptions. We know next to nothing about what causes the ebb and flow of O3 in the stratosphere.
“No one really knows” But lots of people pretend. Why look back, you can predict the future effortlessly?

Menicholas
Reply to  BLACK PEARL
October 7, 2015 4:00 pm

Go back more than a few decades, and it turns out it was rather difficult to gather samples from the upper atmosphere over Antarctica.

charles nelson
Reply to  Menicholas
October 7, 2015 8:14 pm

No. Phil said they’ve been observing the hole since the 1950s. (and he’s always right…about everything)

Reply to  Menicholas
October 7, 2015 9:00 pm

(and he’s always right…about everything)
Noticed that too, did ya? ☺
I’ve caught Phil. in a few howlers. His M.O. is to disappear for a couple days, then reappear with more cut ‘n’ pasted knowledge for us peons.

Reply to  Menicholas
October 8, 2015 3:27 am

dbstealey October 7, 2015 at 9:00 pm
(and he’s always right…about everything)
Noticed that too, did ya? ☺
I’ve caught Phil. in a few howlers.

Only in your imagination, name one, follow Willis’s protocol:
“If you disagree with someone, please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU OBJECT TO.”
His M.O. is to disappear for a couple days, then reappear with more cut ‘n’ pasted knowledge for us peons.
Some of us have a day job, and also don’t need to resort to cut and paste, unlike dbs who always ‘cuts and pastes’ graphs he doesn’t understand.

MarkW
Reply to  Menicholas
October 8, 2015 6:13 am

“and he’s always right…about everything”
Just ask him, he’ll tell you.

Reply to  Menicholas
October 8, 2015 6:20 am

@Phil.,
Do you think you’re that important, that I keep records?
You seem to be claiming that you never have never made a misteak.
You so smart! Can I have your autograph?

Reply to  Menicholas
October 8, 2015 6:36 am

dbstealey October 8, 2015 at 6:20 am
@Phil.,
Do you think you’re that important, that I keep records?

So you can’t substantiate your claim of ‘howlers’, I thought so, typical bluster after you’re caught in error, like we see every week on here by you. If you’re going to make such claims you should be able to back them up, otherwise shut up.
You seem to be claiming that you never have never made a misteak.
No I’m stating that you have not caught me in a ‘howler’, which is quite different!
You so smart! Can I have your autograph?
No.

Reply to  Menicholas
October 8, 2015 6:38 am

Phil. is still trying to uphold the fiction that he’s never been wrong, LOL!

Reply to  Menicholas
October 8, 2015 8:08 am

dbstealey October 8, 2015 at 6:38 am
Phil. is still trying to uphold the fiction that he’s never been wrong, LOL!

Stealey continues to prove that reading comprehension eludes him, is that why you were called ‘smokey’?

Reply to  Menicholas
October 8, 2015 3:28 pm

@Phil.,
I picked ‘Smokey’ in 2008. Used it for a couple of years. It was the name of my wife’s big grey tomcat.
Now I use my real name.
I still think you might be Pee Wee Herman, and I’ve seen you make mistakes. And I think you cut ‘n’ paste, too. Who doesn’t? But by implying that you don’t, well, I suppose you think we’re credulous.
You’re being critical of my name, but you don’t use your name… and I don’t mean “Phil.” Unless that’s your full name, like Prince.
If it is, can I have your autograph? ☺

Menicholas
Reply to  BLACK PEARL
October 7, 2015 4:01 pm

And as for detailed space based spectrographic analysis of he upper atmosphere…fugghedaboudit!

Matt G
Reply to  BLACK PEARL
October 7, 2015 4:07 pm

Ozone in the stratosphere has been known about for decades and it wasn’t until early satellites confirmed there was a ozone hole. Therefore while observations have been going on there has always been a ozone hole and I am certain there has always been one. The ozone hole is a natural occurrence, but scientific evidence did suggest humans probably affected it and made it bigger. Although there are increasing doubts now whether humans contributed towards it bigger than they thought.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1968)025%3C0502:STEBOR%3E2.0.CO;2
Received: November 1, 1966; Revised: January 16, 1968

Reply to  Matt G
October 8, 2015 2:33 am

The measurements that led to the Farman et al paper on the O3 ‘hole’ in 1985 started in 1957, there was no ‘hole’ until the late 70s.
Oleif October 7, 2015 at 4:49 pm
Yes — Radiation from the sun creates Ozone (or is one of many things, but the predominant creator in the atmosphere), so it makes sense that over places with less sun due to various things (angle of earth, clouds) a hole will develop.

Which doesn’t explain why the ‘hole’ develops in the Austral spring when the sunlight reaches the antarctic stratosphere.

Oleif
Reply to  BLACK PEARL
October 7, 2015 4:49 pm

Yes — Radiation from the sun creates Ozone (or is one of many things, but the predominant creator in the atmosphere), so it makes sense that over places with less sun due to various things (angle of earth, clouds) a hole will develop.
I don’t think it needs to be said, but ozone_depletion has been linked by the ipcc with global warming:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
“The same CO2 radiative forcing that produces global warming is expected to cool the stratosphere.[106] This cooling, in turn, is expected to produce a relative increase in ozone (O3) depletion in polar area and the frequency of ozone holes.”
I believe you can add this to yet *another* reason for the pause. More C02. Oh wait.
Anyway — as the earth cools because of less sun, expect to see more ozone holes and a general depletion of ozone. Especially with Polar Stratospheric Clouds forming more over the extreme cold at the poles.

climatologist
Reply to  Oleif
October 8, 2015 7:35 am

For instance, this year the ozone depletion is as high now as never before.

Matt G
Reply to  Oleif
October 8, 2015 11:59 am

“The measurements that led to the Farman et al paper on the O3 ‘hole’ in 1985 started in 1957, there was no ‘hole’ until the late 70s.
That is correct Phil, but there is no way the dobson method could represent what the satellite did over Antarctica since the 1970’s. Measurements are greatly affected by aerosols and atmospheric pollution and over Antarctica where the hole especially shows via satellite, hardly any ground measurements were made in different locations over the same area.
It was eventually agreed that the ground dobson method showed similar results in the northern hemisphere.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/256/5055/342.short
Large depletions in stratospheric ozone were first reported by Farman et al. at Halley Bay (76°S), and confirmed by satellite observations. Chubachi gives a detailed account of ozone decreases and temperatures in the lower stratosphere during the spring of 1982 at 69°S. There is now evidence for annual declines in total ozone by ~6 and 3% in regions of total ozone minima and maxima, respectively, from September to mid-October since the late 1970s.

601nan
October 7, 2015 3:39 pm

Pesky decimal points at the billionths and trillionths.

Ray Boorman
Reply to  601nan
October 7, 2015 8:00 pm

Yes, at the level of 1/10th of a particle in 1,000,000,000,000, it is very easy to make an error 10 or a 100 times the size of the population you are measuring. How do you even measure such a tiny quantity with accuracy?

Mike McMillan
October 7, 2015 3:46 pm

They began applying the Montreal Protocol in 1988. Judging by the 2014 image, it doesn’t seem to have had any effect. There must be a better way to save the penguins.

October 7, 2015 3:48 pm

A simple thought. Any time sombody tells you there is a sudden change in something measured ppt (parts per trillion) laugh them out of the room until they give error bars. Used to be, one in 10000 was ‘limit of detection’. 6sigma took that to PPM with very expensive (sensitive, hard to calibrate) instruments. Now, I trust chemical PPM with claibrations and error bars stated. EPA is pushing PPB. Parts per billion. That is not trustworth. But here parts per trillion? Not just that, but exactly delta 0.44 ppt! OMG– that is delta 440 parts per quadrillion!!! Pretty soon it will be worse than we thought at PARTS PER GOOGLE!
Absurd from first principles of analytic chemistry. Detect a change of 440 molecules in a sample of 10E15? That is what this claims. More likely the change is due to lunch.

Menicholas
Reply to  ristvan
October 7, 2015 4:03 pm

Hey man, I said I was sorry!

Reply to  Menicholas
October 7, 2015 4:22 pm

+10. Beans and beano?

Latitude
Reply to  Menicholas
October 7, 2015 5:10 pm

LOL!…..

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Menicholas
October 7, 2015 10:21 pm

One part per “Advocado’s” number.

Reply to  ristvan
October 8, 2015 1:29 am

Rud – you don’t believe in homeopathy, then?

Doonman
Reply to  ristvan
October 8, 2015 12:59 pm

Are these the same satellites whose sensors are incorrect when measuring temperatures to two decimal places in the troposphere and stratosphere?

October 7, 2015 4:18 pm

“0.13 parts per trillion ” Who the hell cares?

Reply to  tomwtrevor
October 8, 2015 6:50 am

If I multiply by 100 to get an integer 13 parts to 100 trillion what volume of air does that represent? Reasonable assumptions about pressure/temperature. Molecules are small but 100 trillion seems like a lot. Maybe a graspable volume that you could look at and say there are 13 of those in there.

F. Ross
October 7, 2015 4:22 pm

Well look, nothing serious to worry about here.
Just adjust the previous (incorrect measurements) until the present concentration shows a sufficiently scary rise.

October 7, 2015 4:23 pm

“From the ‘possible measurement error’ department.”
In this case it should be “from the “likely doesn’t exist” department.
0.13 parts per trillion doesn’t really exist.

indefatigablefrog
Reply to  tomwtrevor
October 7, 2015 4:47 pm

Just out of interest though, and as a complete aside…about 20mcg of LSD will have a noticeable effect on a person’s state of consciousness, usually, depending on the person. That’s 1/50th of a milligram. And therefore about 1 part per 3.5 billion in weight of a 70kg human being.
It’s funny stuff…

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
October 8, 2015 2:40 am

I laughed for hours.

Menicholas
Reply to  tomwtrevor
October 7, 2015 6:20 pm

One quart of Blue Lagoon lake Dye added to a one acre lake that is 8 feet deep will make it so dark blue that sun cannot penetrate more than a few inches into it.
And the quart of dye itself is mostly water.
Chemical compounds can have profound effect in small quantity and concentration, as our Tireless Amphibian Friend points out in another context, above.
Although I do agree with all here who suggest that this PPT sensitivity of measurements is perhaps more fanciful than factual.
I am reminded of a Dave Barry column from many years ago, in which he was pondering the job of those who search for ever more rare fundamental particles, by examining the trails of “debris” left when atoms and particles are smashed together.
So there is a scientist, sitting in a basement room in some remote location, staring at a screen all day long for years on end, when he suddenly jumps up and shouts to the others
“THERES ONE!
I SAW ONE!
At least, I think it was one.
I am pretty sure it was one.
Maybe it was one.”
Hmm, I suppose I lost some part of that story in the intervening decades.
It was funny.
At least, I think it was funny…

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Menicholas
October 7, 2015 10:27 pm

What I thought was funny along these lines occurred in the “Big Bang Theory” sitcom where Sheldon said, “My hair is growing at the rate of 4.6 yoctometers per femtosecond!”

Reply to  Menicholas
October 7, 2015 10:48 pm

…yoctometers per femtosecond.
That’s a keeper! Better than Olympic-sized swimming pools.

indefatigablefrog
Reply to  Menicholas
October 8, 2015 1:46 am

How odd, that a blog that is skeptical of the postulated “consensus” on global warming alarmism should give host to, “my kind of people”!! And where are all the dummies, who typically inhabit internet forums?
Who would have expected that there might be such a refuge, here, of all places?

Reply to  Menicholas
October 8, 2015 2:42 am

That would be a rather slow rate of hair growth. 🙂

Paul
Reply to  Menicholas
October 8, 2015 4:43 am

“And where are all the dummies, who typically inhabit internet forums?”
We’re busy looking up all of those big words…yoctometers?

Reply to  Menicholas
October 8, 2015 5:34 am

1 yoctometer is 10^-24 meters

MarkW
Reply to  Menicholas
October 8, 2015 6:17 am

I still prefer furlongs per fortnight

indefatigablefrog
October 7, 2015 4:55 pm

It’s a good thing that scientists weren’t about when the meteor hit the Yucatan Peninsula.
They would have doubtlessly called the event unprecedented and named a whole new geological boundary after it. Or after their girlfriend Katie. Or somesuch thing. But I digress.
But, they would have gone ape-shit. Except that apes had not yet been invented. So shrew-shit, perhaps, at most. This comment isn’t going well is it? I should cut back in my mescaline consumption.

Lee Osburn
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
October 7, 2015 7:53 pm

Not to mention the Balcones fault that we hold dear here in Texas.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
October 8, 2015 5:03 am

:-)+ 100

October 7, 2015 5:33 pm

I’ve never really understood how HCFC’s with a molar mass four times that of Nitrogen can both reach and isolate in the upper atmosphere.. Especially when they also seem to have an affinity for groundwater (where they are rapidly gobbled up by methanotrophic bacteria.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009254114003635

philincalifornia
Reply to  Karl
October 7, 2015 5:44 pm

What is amazing though is that people who can’t get real jobs understand it intimately and at incredibly high resolution.

indefatigablefrog
Reply to  philincalifornia
October 8, 2015 1:53 am

Well, a job can severely curtail the number of hours each day that a person could potentially spend learning new things about science and the world. Very often, a job, restricts an otherwise intelligent individual to the repetition of a small range of highly specialized tasks.
Jobs are over-rated, in my view. I do have one, but at least I admit that I would be more informed if I spent less of my time working and more time indulging my natural curiosity and inventive spirit.
My real job serves neither. Sadly.

Reply to  Karl
October 7, 2015 6:21 pm

HCFCs were chosen in preference to CFCs because the presence of C-H bonds allow it to break up in the lower atmosphere rather than make it intact to the stratosphere. Turbulent mixing and diffusion transports HCFCs up to the stratosphere regardless of the molar mass.

beng135
Reply to  Phil.
October 8, 2015 3:05 am

phildot sez:

Turbulent mixing and diffusion transports HCFCs up to the stratosphere regardless of the molar mass.

I’ll have to agree, to a point. Diffusion/mixing does move it up, but I doubt that, say, uranium-hexafloride would get up there as easily as hydrogen. 🙂

Reply to  Phil.
October 8, 2015 3:18 am

Hydrogen would certainly get there faster than UF6, however the standard tracer for atmospheric mixing studies is SF6 (molar mass 146) which mixes very readily.

Bob Burban
October 7, 2015 5:39 pm

With the bulk of industry concentrated in the upper northern hemisphere, how did the alleged anthropogenic pollutants get concentrated above the South Pole? Then there is the Mt Erebus strato-volcano that lies directly beneath the ozone ‘hole’ – with a summit ~3,794m (~12,448ft) ASL. It has been continuously erupting since about 1972. As near as I can tell, the concentrations of fluorine and chlorine in the emitted gasses have been expunged from official sites.

gymnosperm
Reply to  Bob Burban
October 7, 2015 7:59 pm

Yezzz, volcanic “halosols”.

Reply to  Bob Burban
October 8, 2015 2:53 am

They aren’t concentrated over the South Pole, because of the particular conditions of the atmosphere there that’s where they do the most damage to the ozone. CFCs released in the NH take about 5 years to make it to the S polar stratosphere. Measurements of the emissions from Mt Erebus show that its emissions of Chlorine are too low to have an effect (and don’t make it into the stratosphere anyway:
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.
P.R. Kyle, K. Meeker, and D. Finnegan, “Emission rates of sulfur dioxide, trace gases, and metals from Mount Erebus, Antarctica”, Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, 2125, 1990.

urederra
Reply to  Phil.
October 8, 2015 8:37 am

Phil.
October 8, 2015 at 2:53 am
They aren’t concentrated over the South Pole, because of the particular conditions of the atmosphere there that’s where they do the most damage to the ozone.

What particular conditions? spooky condition that CO2 and CFCs share?
The only conditions that affect a chemical reaction in gas phase are temperature, concentration of the reagents and UV radiation, and none of them are favoured in the cold dark polar stratosphere. If CFCs were breaking ozone, the effect would be more notorious in the equator where there is higher temperature, higher CFC concentration and higher UV radiation.
Ozone is formed and decays naturally, that is why no high ozone concentrations in the atmosphere and why ozone concentration swings at the poles. It is formed when there is light, it is destroyed when there is not.

Gary Pearse
October 7, 2015 5:46 pm

Folks, 0.44 parts per trillion is getting very close to zero. Others have commented that the error bars are most likely larger than the measurement. Let’s see if I can put this in context. If you measured 0.44 parts per trillion of the distance between the sun and the earth, that would be 66 centimetres!! What are the error bars of this measurement would you guess?

NW sage
October 7, 2015 5:55 pm

This dust up proves the obvious – just because we CAN measure in parts per trillion doesn’t mean we SHOULD!

Grant
October 7, 2015 5:58 pm

Yeah, grow a pair and be yourself

Reply to  Grant
October 7, 2015 6:11 pm

Which self?

October 7, 2015 6:15 pm

The atmosphere seems to be one of the most studied of our earthly environments. Yet the experts are lost for explanation of many observations.
Maybe we have more to learn before second guessing planetary atmospheric behaviours.

Alec aka Daffy Duck
October 7, 2015 6:34 pm

Hmm, you make me look to see what the Antarctic ‘ozone hole’ was doing the year: http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov

AnonyMoose
Reply to  Alec aka Daffy Duck
October 7, 2015 8:32 pm
dennisambler
Reply to  Alec aka Daffy Duck
October 8, 2015 3:52 am

From the Nasa link: “Also, from direct measurements over Antarctica, a column ozone level of less than 220 Dobson Units is a result of the ozone loss from chlorine and bromine compounds.”
This is from BAS press release in July 2007:
“LARGE quantities of ozone-depleting chemicals have been discovered in the Antarctic atmosphere by researchers from the University of Leeds, the University of East Anglia, and the British Antarctic Survey.
The team of atmospheric chemists carried out an 18-month study of the make-up of the lowest part of the earth’s atmosphere on the Brunt Ice Shelf, about 20 km from the Weddell Sea. They found high concentrations of halogens – bromine and iodine oxides – which persist throughout the period when there is sunlight in Antarctica (August through May).”
“A big surprise to the science team was the large quantities of iodine oxide, since this chemical has not been detected in the Arctic.
The source of the halogens is natural – sea-salt in the case of bromine, and in the case of iodine, almost certainly bright orange algae that coat the underside of the sea ice around the continent.
These halogens cause a substantial depletion in ozone above the ice surface. This affects the so-called oxidising capacity of the atmosphere – its ability to “clean itself” by removing certain – often man-made – chemical compounds. The iodine oxides also form tiny particles (a few nanometres in size), which can grow to form ice clouds, with a consequent impact on the local climate.”

urederra
Reply to  dennisambler
October 8, 2015 1:53 pm

dennisambler
October 8, 2015 at 3:52 am

The team of atmospheric chemists carried out an 18-month study of the make-up of the lowest part of the earth

That made me laugh. Those australians living upside down in the lowest part of the Earth…

Billy Liar
Reply to  Alec aka Daffy Duck
October 8, 2015 2:06 pm

This year is heading for one of the biggest holes with a minimum ozone concentration in the lowest 5 or 6 since satellite measurements began.
So much for the Montreal Protocol. My money is on the ozone hole not being much affected by CFC’s.

Steve in SC
October 7, 2015 6:45 pm

Gotta be global warming as the cause.

Steve
Reply to  Steve in SC
October 7, 2015 7:01 pm

For sure…that CO2 is responsible for all that ails us…

Marcus
Reply to  Steve
October 7, 2015 7:07 pm

Help , I’m going bald !!!!! Dang Glo.Bull Warming !!!!

RD
October 7, 2015 7:17 pm

From the “possible measurement error” department
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yeppers! These types of introductions are too funny and a great hook – keep them coming!

Crispin in Waterloo
October 7, 2015 7:24 pm

I think we should look for a volcanic source and GCR destruction.
While we are looking, we should try to find the cause of the disappearance of mercury for several hours at a time from the air arriving from Antarctica at Cape Point, South Africa.

higley7
October 7, 2015 7:58 pm

This is assuming they were breaking down ozone in the first place. We know now that the “research” that showed that CFCs broke down ozone in the Antarctic was bogus science cobbled up to demonize Du Pont’s out-of-patent refrigerant. They lobbied and paid for propaganda based on junk science, had the refrigerant banned, and just happened to have a much more expensive replacement refrigerant all ready to go and under patent. Twenty years later, the scientist admitted to the fraud, but it’s too late and too many people continue to think that CFCs and relatives are bad for the ozone layer. Too bad, junk science and fraud lives on.

Anna Keppa
Reply to  higley7
October 7, 2015 8:55 pm

You’ve offered nothing more than a string of unsupported assertions!
How about some citations to back up these claims?

indefatigablefrog
Reply to  Anna Keppa
October 8, 2015 4:30 am

References would have been nice.
But, assertions are all that is necessarily to spark interest in the proposition.
It’s a reasonable proposition, and not unlike known documented events in recent history.
So, I guess that higley wishes only to point people.
We’ll have to do our own verification/debunking. Who knows, at this point?
Who would have believed the Iran Contra story, if simply told about via unreferenced assertions?
But it appears to have all actually happened.

Mick
Reply to  higley7
October 7, 2015 10:02 pm

I have to go to a back alley to get my old volvo recharged with refrigerant every 2 years by a licensed tech.

Paul Westhaver
October 7, 2015 8:14 pm

I am not a chemist. I do know some chemistry, let me say 1/2 a chemistry degree.
I am insufficiently competent in the subject mater to definitive so I would like someone to correct my understanding of the reaction kinetics that yield the decomposition of atmospheric ozone.
I am a skeptic. I am skeptical that HFCs actually make it up to the ozone layer and then react with the ozone, thereby depleting it. I believe it to be a hoax, like DDT and thin seabird egg shells, like global warming, and like the moon landings.
Can somebody describe the chemical process how the ozone is broken down. Hey Lewandowsky… I just trolled you, you dork.

Mick
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
October 7, 2015 10:05 pm

You want a mechanism. Just google it.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Mick
October 7, 2015 11:13 pm

I did that. I even resorted to wiki…In my mind the densities of the HFC/CFC limit mixing. and there is the activation energies. I just doesn’t seem likely to me.

Reply to  Mick
October 8, 2015 3:09 am

Paul Westhaver October 7, 2015 at 11:13 pm
I did that. I even resorted to wiki…In my mind the densities of the HFC/CFC limit mixing. and there is the activation energies. I just doesn’t seem likely to me.

Well your personal skepticism doesn’t make for a scientific argument. Here’s an experiment for you, open a bottle of vanilla extract in the corner of a room, how long before you can smell it throughout the room? Vanillin, the active ingredient has a molar mass of ~152, greater than CFC 12!

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Mick
October 8, 2015 11:34 am

Also Mick… It isn’t helpful to suggest to a person to “google it”. One would think that I would have done that.
I am more interested in understanding the process, get the “answer”..maybe.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3263670/Is-Google-rotting-BRAIN-adults-search-answers-without-trying-remember-25-immediately-forget-ve-out.html

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Mick
October 8, 2015 11:59 am

Phil, Let us examine your example.
“…open a bottle of vanilla…”
The principle that I expressed was density, not vapor pressure of equilibrium of solutions. In a room, the bottle of vanilla and I would be at the same elevation. So the effect of density is not tested in your suggestion.
The density of ozone is 2.144 mg cm−3.
The density of vanilla is at least 3X more dense.
The density of HFC is 2X that of ozone.
Why is petroleum vapor more abundant at earth’s surface?
We know that H2 resides in the exosphere because it is the least dense particle.
In any event, here is a great paper on the composition of the atmosphere as a function of altitude.
http://ruc.noaa.gov/AMB_Publications_bj/2009%20Schlatter_Atmospheric%20Composition%20and%20Vertical%20Structure_eae319MS-1.pdf

Reply to  Mick
October 9, 2015 9:33 am

Paul Westhaver October 8, 2015 at 11:59 am
Phil, Let us examine your example.
“…open a bottle of vanilla…”
The principle that I expressed was density, not vapor pressure of equilibrium of solutions. In a room, the bottle of vanilla and I would be at the same elevation. So the effect of density is not tested in your suggestion.
The density of ozone is 2.144 mg cm−3.
The density of vanilla is at least 3X more dense.
The density of HFC is 2X that of ozone.

Exactly, so it’s density which is addressed by my example! Put the bottle at the bottom of a staircase and got to the top of the stairs.
Why is petroleum vapor more abundant at earth’s surface?
Because it is broken down chemically before it gets very far.
We know that H2 resides in the exosphere because it is the least dense particle.
‘Resides’ isn’t a good description, passes through after being formed by decomposition of H2O and CH4 etc in the stratosphere and above is more accurate, a lot of it is H atoms which have an escape velocity.
In any event, here is a great paper on the composition of the atmosphere as a function of altitude.
http://ruc.noaa.gov/AMB_Publications_bj/2009%20Schlatter_Atmospheric%20Composition%20and%20Vertical%20Structure_eae319MS-1.pdf

Yes, you should have read it before coming here and pontificating on a subject you know little about.
For example:
“This relationship of the partial pressures of two gases at different altitudes says that the relative abundance of the “lighter” gas increases with altitude. This property is not observed below about 100-km altitude because of turbulence, the bulk motion of large volumes of air that effectively mixes the component gases of air so that their relative concentrations do not vary from the surface to about 100 km. For this reason the molecular weight of dry air does not vary in this altitude range, nor does the gas constant for dry air. That part of the atmosphere in which the gaseous constituents are mixed in constant ratios is called the homosphere.”

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Mick
October 9, 2015 1:17 pm

It isn’t pontification to ask questions you @rse. Since you didn’t attempt to address my honest question, rather you ignored the salient point and made an dismissive remark, I sought alternative resources. Because you were so incompetent in handling the question I persevered and found some useful resolution to my legitimate inquiry… without your non-help.

Reply to  Mick
October 11, 2015 7:28 am

It isn’t pontification to ask questions you @rse. Since you didn’t attempt to address my honest question, rather you ignored the salient point and made an dismissive remark
This is what I mean by ‘pontification’, the manner in which you posted was not an ‘honest question’.
I am a skeptic. I am skeptical that HFCs actually make it up to the ozone layer and then react with the ozone, thereby depleting it. I believe it to be a hoax, like DDT and thin seabird egg shells, like global warming, and like the moon landings.
Paul you said this, which I addressed, you claimed that:
“In my mind the densities of the HFC/CFC limit mixing.”
I addressed that part which you continued to dispute, despite citing a reference which explains that your belief is wrong, saying:
In any event, here is a great paper on the composition of the atmosphere as a function of altitude.
Given that attitude a prolonged discussion on the reaction kinetics didn’t seem likely to be fruitful! Especially given the abusive manner in which you asked the question.
If you want a lesson in the reaction kinetics I’m prepared to give you one, but you’d have to be a lot more polite when asking for it.

indefatigablefrog
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
October 8, 2015 4:34 am

I believe that all events that occurred since 1998 are hoaxes perpetrated by Cook, Lewandowsky, Suzuki and Naomi Oreskes/Klein (who is actually the same person, in disguise).
Come on Klein, take off that ugly Oreskes Mask, we know it’s you…

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
October 8, 2015 9:14 pm

Paul, there are three papers by Prof Lu at the university of Waterloo on this subject and all are open source if you look around. There is a spirited defence that took place on Eli Rabit’s blog.
There is a significant part played by GCR’s in the creation of the thinned layer in the Antarctic. Bromine from the ocean is also involved, which is completely natural and huge.
The mechanism was first proposed, then confirmed in lab experiments done here in Waterloo. Prof Lu proposes that the ozone hole is a massive heat iris that can explain all global temperature change since 1960 I think it is.
The papers and the stacks on them make for very interesting reading. The attacks are not very effective and often sound desperate, trying to say the mechanism is not possible so they don’t have to account for it in models. Whatever effect it has subtracts from CO2 so you can see where that is going.
Good luck.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
October 10, 2015 12:22 pm

Crispin,
Thank-you. I will challenge my chemistry. I will follow up. FYI. Hamdullahpur taught me Energy Conversion Systems circa 1987-8.

Steve Jones
October 7, 2015 8:24 pm

(This is a banned sockpuppet’s comment. Deleted. -mod)

Mark luhman
Reply to  Steve Jones
October 7, 2015 10:44 pm

We are talking about CFC not HFC, and the real question is and remains were are these compounds coming from, man or nature. You link tells us nothing on this, it talking about a green house gas not Freon and ozone depletion.

Reply to  Mark luhman
October 8, 2015 3:00 am

The original post is about HCFC 133a so we’re not talking about CFCs. The paper referenced answers the question by Paul Westhaver:
I am a skeptic. I am skeptical that HFCs actually make it up to the ozone layer

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Mark luhman
October 8, 2015 3:42 pm

Phil,
No. I read what is available and the question I raise is not actually answered in the paper. That being said, I have otherwise found data, models, and theories which describe the composition question and reaction mechanisms.

Reply to  Mark luhman
October 9, 2015 9:39 am

You’re skeptical that HFCs can make it to the stratosphere and actual measurements of an HFC there don’t address that skepticism. That’s not skepticism, a more appropriate description begins with ‘d’.

Steve Jones
Reply to  Mark luhman
October 9, 2015 9:50 am

Thank you Phil.

sysiphus /
Reply to  Mark luhman
October 10, 2015 1:39 pm

Two important points.
-It is not a “hole”. It is a thinnimg, or lessening.
-We have no baseline of any statistically significant time length to draw any conclusions whatsoever. To say we do

sysiphus /
Reply to  Mark luhman
October 10, 2015 1:39 pm

is very misleading.

Reply to  Mark luhman
October 11, 2015 7:15 am

-It is not a “hole”. It is a thinnimg, or lessening.
It’s a hole, O3 drops to zero between 14 and 20 km altitude.
See here for example:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ozwv/ozsondes/spo/iadv/SPO_1997-10-08.00.png
Here’s the profile from a few days ago, showing a drop from 14 mPa before to about 0.2 mPa:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ozwv/ozsondes/spo/iadv/SPO_2015-10-06.21.png

October 7, 2015 8:25 pm

I find it curious that electromagnetic effects are consistently ignored with respect to the poles. Yet, the Earth is literally immersed in the solar wind plasma, and that plasma is guided at the poles by the Earth’s magnetic field. There is also of course a hole in the noctilucent clouds as well, and the chemistry and general circulation models have — as pointed out on this site — thus far failed to explain the polar vortex.
The GCM’s are currently incapable of even capturing E-field changes in these regions, both spatially and temporally, which is why NASA is paying Yue Deng of the University of Texas to create new GCM’s which can explain what actually happens to that charge as it moves through the poles.
People seem to easily forget that there is a bias in the atmospheric sciences and climate models against the consideration of these charge change phenomena where the plasma interfaces with the atmosphere. Researchers are prone to simply assuming that this charge does nothing of any importance — probably because their models have not been designed to even take it into account.

Reply to  Chris Reeve
October 8, 2015 12:18 am

A good example happened in March 2013. Sunspot No 1692 emitted a long duration (36 minutes) M1 type flare on March 15 which was directly aimed at Earth’s northern hemisphere. It impacted on March 17 and produced fantastic auroras. By March 20 the stratospheric temperature at the North Pole had increased by 60 deg C, the westerly polar vortex had become easterly and an enormous high pressure system became centered over Greenland. It was the highest recorded over Greenland and second highest ever recorded anywhere. The pressure on the North American continent supposedly caused the ionosphere to light up above the New Madrid fault line and the San Andreas fault line but fortunately nothing happened to those fault lines then. The Arctic Oscillation index went below -5 on March 19 and stayed below -5 for 3 days. The only other times it had been below -5 for 3 days occurred in Feb 1969, March 1970, Dec 2009 and Feb 2010.
The reason why there was such a reaction to the CME was that magnetic field lines of the sun and earth joined as the plasma reached earth and for a short period channeled many hundreds of tons of the stuff into the north pole ionosphere. These types of connections seem to be occurring frequently and with the increased presence of coronal holes pumping lots of relatively high energy plasma into space there are interesting changes occurring in our space weather. It just makes you realize how myopic mainstream “IPCC centered” climate science is.

Reply to  Brent Walker
October 8, 2015 7:54 am

Hi, Brent (and others). I have been stunned by the sheer size of arguments which can be put forward on this issue of a connection between space and Earth weather, and have spent considerable time trying to bring order to the claims by breaking them into sub-claims and supporting resources.
This is arguably work which the experts should be doing, but I feel strongly based upon my own personal research that the experts are failing us on this issue, and that those few who are paying attention to the issue need to get our hands dirty with bringing some order to this topic. I’ve tried my best to do so here:
https://social-scientific.herokuapp.com/#/tab/controversies/0#claims
This is simply my first prototype, and there is an improved version using better web technology in the pipeline (It was created for mobile, so you may have to make your desktop window thin to view it properly.)
I welcome any feedback at my email address, paradigmsareconstructed@gmail.com. To my knowledge, this is the most centralized repository of these arguments in the world, at the current moment, and my intention in due time is to transform this into a general-purpose repository for all scientific controversies. This is simply the first; I track a number of other controversies, and they tend to exhibit similar patterns. Since the experts refuse to map out the controversies, the public should simply do it for them. Please help me to make these materials as good as they can be.

bit chilly
Reply to  Chris Reeve
October 8, 2015 3:14 am

as soon as governments can work out a justification for taxing human consumption of sunlight , you can be sure the bias in the atmospheric sciences will change then.

David Cage
October 7, 2015 11:26 pm

Like most thing in the polar regions it is poorly researched and then additionally it is grossly oversimplified in the political and media presentations. Sadly the sort of people who go into projects like polar research have more of the explorer than the true scientific mindset. This coupled with the way that the moment climate is involved the people have more of an Eco than a scientific mindset gives us a doubly poor end result in all of the work.

Patrick
October 8, 2015 1:57 am

O3 is constantly being created and destroyed by UV isn’t it?

ren
Reply to  Patrick
October 8, 2015 4:57 am

The Mg II data are derived from GOME (1995-2011), SCIAMACHY (2002-2012), GOME-2A (2007-present), and GOME-2B (2012-present). All three data sets as well as the Bremen Mg II composite data are available (see links below). In late years the GOME solar irradiance has degraded to about 20% of its value near 280 nm in 1995, so that the GOME data have become noisier. The most recent information on our Mg II data can be found in Snow et al. (2014).
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite.png
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
Comparison of UV solar activity in the three most recent solar cycles (SC) 22-24. The thick curves show the Mg II index timeseries twice smoothed with a 55-day boxcar. Dates of minima of solar cycles (YYYYMMDD) were determined from the smoothed Mg II index.
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/gomemgii.html

Reply to  Patrick
October 8, 2015 5:38 am

Not over the S Pole in the Austral winter.

ren
October 8, 2015 5:03 am

Antarctic Situation at 2015 October 5
Antarctic ozone today: Ozone depletion is extensive and the ozone hole covers most of Antarctica. The ozone hole grew rapidly from mid August onwards and is near its largest at some 25 million square kilometres. This is a larger hole than the average of those over the last decade and is the largest at this time of year for over a decade, though not the absolute largest. The hole is roughly triangular in shape (wavenumber 3), but is expected to become more elliptical later in the week. The ozone distribution is that of mid spring with lowest and still slowly decreasing ozone amounts across the continent, particularly over East Antarctica, and higher values around the Southern Ocean. Values currently range from around 120 DU over East Antarctica to near 400 DU over parts of the Southern Ocean. These highest values are lower than at the same time last year. There are significant differences between the various satellite measurements. Temperatures in the lower part of the ozone layer are still below the threshold for Polar Stratospheric Cloud (PSC) formation over much of Antarctica and the area with PSCs is larger than average, but is decreasing. Through most of the ozone layer temperatures are below the long term average but are warming and in the higher parts of the ozone layer are above the PSC formation threshold. The polar vortex is near average in size at most levels except the highest and lowest, where it is significantly larger than average.
The 2015 ozone hole: Ozone hole levels were briefly reached over the Antarctic Peninsula on August 5 with significant depletion over the continent beginning in mid August. Depletion became more widespread by September, exceeding the mean for the last decade and greater than in the last couple of years. Ozone declined by about 1% per day near the centre of the ozone hole. The polar vortex was the largest over the past decade in the upper part of the ozone layer from July to September and the area with PSCs was also larger than average during this period.
https://legacy.bas.ac.uk/met/jds/ozone/index.html

MarkW
October 8, 2015 5:59 am

I know, I know. Global Warming ™ caused it.

General P. Malaise
October 8, 2015 6:25 am

doesn’t most anything destroy ozone (well allow it to lose one oxygen molecule).
lucky for us the suns rays striking the upper atmosphere makes ozone. yeah for the sun and us.

Mickey Reno
October 8, 2015 8:56 am

Whenever an Ozone hole thread pops up, I like to look at the data. From NOAA’s web site ( http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=SPO&program=ozwv&type=ts ) here are four plots of Antarctic ozone measurements. Look at these graphs and I dare you to find an signal for decreasing ozone due to CFCs prior to the Montreal Protocol implementation, an upward tick in ozone due to the Montreal protocols being implemented, or an unnatural ozone hole – although there does appear to be a natural one, seasonally based, caused by lack of sunlight, peaking each year in mid to late October about 1 month after the spring equinox. There appears to be a step change around 1984, which shows a lower level of total ozone but similar seasonal ranges. This step change took place prior to Montreal, so is not an artifact of that policy change. Perhaps it’s due to a shift to more or newer satellite measurements?
Graph 1 – Total ozone for all layers of the atmosphere from 1963 to present
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2gSdrnbsEEOU3RQOExRZ2Y5N0E/view?usp=sharing
Graph 2 – Ozone measured for the surface layer only from 1963 to present
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2gSdrnbsEEOcThtSFRaVVlFbGM/view?usp=sharing
Graph 3 – Total ozone for all layers for latest complete year (2014)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2gSdrnbsEEOSUZ4WVdNN01pWFU/view?usp=sharing
Graph 4 – Total ozone for all layers for earliest complete year (1964 for comparison with 2014)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2gSdrnbsEEOb2k3TmlYbDVMcUU/view?usp=sharing
Phil, you’re up. Show me where on these graphs are trends that should alarm us.

Reply to  Mickey Reno
October 9, 2015 9:44 am

Try graph 1, it shows spring minima about 250 units in the 60s dropping to ~100 units in the 80s and below 100 in the 90s.

Reply to  Mickey Reno
October 9, 2015 9:47 am

Show me where on these graphs are trends that should alarm us.
I’m not alarmed. Are you alarmed, Mickey?

ferdberple
October 8, 2015 11:53 am

If CFC’s are causing the Ozone hole, then the Arctic should have a bigger ozone hole than the Antarctic, because CFC’s are primarily manufactured in the northern hemisphere. The reason we don’t observe this is quite simple; something else is causing the Ozone hole.
The reason the Antarctic ozone hole is larger is quite simpler. It is colder in the Antarctic. This means there is a stronger flow of air descending at the South Pole than at the North Pole, and it is this strong flow of cold air that sweeps O3 out of the polar regions and carries it along the surface towards the equator, while warm, O3 deficient air is carried aloft from the tropic to the poles, creating the hole.
This difference is readily apparent when one compares the much stronger flow of katabatic winds that sweep out of the interior of Antarctica and compared to the much weaker flow of winds that sweep out of the Arctic.

Reply to  ferdberple
October 9, 2015 3:33 am

Short(er)wave radiation creates ozone, long(er)wave radiation depletes ozone; polar stratospheric clouds form in the extreme cold of the poles; the angle of the earth creates a natural low O3 creation zone and depletion zone.
My theory — without knowing enough to even look for the science: The stratospheric clouds block / absorb the shorter waves more than the longer waves. Or the cold air creates a less friendly environment for O3 creation (perhaps it is easier to deplete O3 than to create it, and when there is less energy available.. Or there are less molecules bouncing around to create O3 reactions.. Or both). Or both!
The poles already have *natural* depletion periods — the spring. If these depletion periods happen so regularly just due to a seasonal change, this would overwhelm any signal that an extra chemical or two would create. Just like with CO2 and global warming — the signal from other factors are so much more dominant that CO2 as a culprit for GW is not a good starting place..

Reply to  ferdberple
October 11, 2015 6:34 am

If CFC’s are causing the Ozone hole, then the Arctic should have a bigger ozone hole than the Antarctic, because CFC’s are primarily manufactured in the northern hemisphere. The reason we don’t observe this is quite simple; something else is causing the Ozone hole.
Something else is contributing to the ozone hole, namely, Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSC) which play an important rȏle in the O3 destruction mechanism. PSCs are much more prevalent in the colder antarctic stratosphere than in the arctic. The catalytic behavior of PSCs is important but without Cl the O3 depletion wouldn’t happen, this year the ‘hole’ is larger because the PSC is above normal because the temperature is lower favoring their formation.

Larry Wirth
October 8, 2015 8:41 pm

higley 7 @ 7:58pm:
Yep, remember the period quite well. As an architect/engineer building commercial kitchens for restaurants, hotels, etc., there was no doubt among the various refrigeration specialists we worked with on a daily basis that DuPont was behind the entire process for exactly the reason you have stated.
DuPont was certainly well aware that their patents on the most commonly used refrigerants was about to expire, with a catastrophic impact on their bottom line. So they did exactly what you would expect any similar set of bastards to do. Make their previous product line illegal and impose their new products as indispensable. Forget about side effects, like inhalers. I am pro-Capitalist but anti-Monopolist.
No one in my industry at the time was unaware of what was going on, but most of us had no time for tilting at windmills, so we just quietly submitted to a world-class fraud.
Your comment was absolutely on-point, but very few people here will “get it.” What a shame, since crap like this goes on on a daily basis.

Reply to  Larry Wirth
October 9, 2015 3:39 am

In today’s political climate (ahem), any kind of reasoning that ascribes a means and motive and thus execution to a monopolist is something I’ll consider. We see this behavior with Big-Medicine — why not Big-Chemical?

Reply to  Larry Wirth
October 9, 2015 9:49 am

DuPont’s patents were granted in 1932 and had long since expired. Their Freon business was already taking a hit due to the loss of the aerosol business.

Brett Keane
October 9, 2015 1:19 am

The idiots had the chemistry wrong from the start:
Nature 449, 382-383 (2007) | doi:10.1038/449382a
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/ozone/
Further study reveals that UV both makes and destroys ozone. Escape to the winter pole preserves some for a while, time depletes it over winter (airbourne sea salt is mainly halogen compounds, polar stratospheres are very close to the surface, especially antarctica). The BAS discovered depletion over the”Year of the Quiet Sun” 1964, did not realise that meant low production (quiet sun/lower UV), and falsely blamed our refrigerants. The rest is typical hippy science history……

Reply to  Brett Keane
October 9, 2015 6:57 am

They were not idiots and did not have the chemistry wrong. The paper you referenced was actually wrong due to an impurity and was corrected about two years later, this has been verified by several groups including Pope’s.
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090507/full/news.2009.456.html
Escape to the winter pole preserves some for a while, time depletes it over winter (airbourne sea salt is mainly halogen compounds, polar stratospheres are very close to the surface, especially antarctica).
The antarctic stratosphere is a long way from any airborne sea salt, the atmospheric HCl generated from the sea salt is rapidly depleted in the troposphere, at sea level it has a mixing ratio 0.05 – 0.45 ppb, measurements show that the mixing ratio drops to less than 0.1 ppb above 7 km and less than 0.04 ppb at 13.7 km. There is more chlorine in the lower atmosphere in the form of halocarbons than the salt generated HCl. Total tropospheric organic chlorine was about 3.8 ppb in 1991, of this total about 0.6 ppb constitutes is due to natural sources. Halocarbons are the dominant form of chlorine in the lower stratosphere, at higher altitudes the photolysis products of halocarbons are abundant.
The O3 does not deplete over winter, it stays fairly constant until mid August followed by a steady decline as a result of the return of the UV.
The BAS discovered depletion over the”Year of the Quiet Sun” 1964, did not realise that meant low production (quiet sun/lower UV), and falsely blamed our refrigerants.
Not true, from 1957 the BAS monitoring showed annual O3 minima around 300 units (an abnormal low in 1966 around 275 units, not 1964). A gradual decline in these minima through the 70s accelerated in the 80s, never above 250 units after 1980, below 150 units in the 90s.
I don’t know where you get your ‘non science’ from but it’s a load of rubbish!

Reply to  Brett Keane
October 9, 2015 12:13 pm

They certainly weren’t idiots and didn’t have the chemistry wrong! The paper you refer to got it wrong due to impurities and was rebutted by at least two other labs within two years, Pope, the author acknowledged the problem.
time depletes it over winter (airbourne sea salt is mainly halogen compounds, polar stratospheres are very close to the surface, especially antarctica).
Well the sea salt is a long way from the Antarctic stratosphere and the HCl from it is rapidly depleted in the atmosphere ( less than 0.04 ppb by 10 km).
In contrast halocarbons were at 3.8 ppb by 1989, only about 0.6 ppb of this is due to natural sources.
The BAS discovered depletion over the”Year of the Quiet Sun” 1964, did not realise that meant low production (quiet sun/lower UV), and falsely blamed our refrigerants.
More misinformation, the BAS measurements showed annual minima ~300 units or more until 1966 when it dropped to about 270 followed by a recovery for a few years, after 1979 a steady drop occurred to about 150 in 1987 (below 150 through the 1990s).
I would suggest reading the real science rather than whatever propaganda you’re reading now.

Reply to  Phil.
October 11, 2015 6:04 am

Sorry for the double post, the first time I posted it it disappeared and only showed up sometime after I posted the second time.

Brett Keane
October 9, 2015 1:29 am

There is never an ozone danger over my home, Mew Zealand ( I monitor it). Least of all when it is warm enough to go bareback. That pretty well covers the SH risk area…

%d bloggers like this: