![ozone_11sept2014[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/ozone_11sept20141.png?quality=75)
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
You’ve offered nothing more than a string of unsupported assertions!
How about some citations to back up these claims?
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.
I have to go to a back alley to get my old volvo recharged with refrigerant every 2 years by a licensed tech.
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.
You want a mechanism. Just google it.
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.
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!
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
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
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.”
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.
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.
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…
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.
Crispin,
Thank-you. I will challenge my chemistry. I will follow up. FYI. Hamdullahpur taught me Energy Conversion Systems circa 1987-8.
(This is a banned sockpuppet’s comment. Deleted. -mod)
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.
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
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.
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’.
Thank you Phil.
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
is very misleading.
-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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
O3 is constantly being created and destroyed by UV isn’t it?
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
Not over the S Pole in the Austral winter.
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
I know, I know. Global Warming ™ caused it.
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.
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.
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.
Show me where on these graphs are trends that should alarm us.
I’m not alarmed. Are you alarmed, Mickey?
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.
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..
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.
higley 7 @ur momisugly 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.
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?
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.
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……
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!
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.
Sorry for the double post, the first time I posted it it disappeared and only showed up sometime after I posted the second time.
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…