Measurements from satellites this year showed the hole in Earth’s ozone layer that forms over Antarctica each September was the smallest observed since 1988, scientists from NASA and NOAA announced Friday.
According to NASA, the ozone hole reached its peak extent on Sept. 11, covering an area about two and a half times the size of the United States – 7.6 million square miles in extent – and then declined through the remainder of September and into October. NOAA ground- and balloon-based measurements also showed the least amount of ozone depletion above the continent during the peak of the ozone depletion cycle since 1988. NOAA and NASA collaborate to monitor the growth and recovery of the ozone hole every year.
“The Antarctic ozone hole was exceptionally weak this year,” said Paul A. Newman, chief scientist for Earth Sciences at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. “This is what we would expect to see given the weather conditions in the Antarctic stratosphere.”
The smaller ozone hole in 2017 was strongly influenced by an unstable and warmer Antarctic vortex – the stratospheric low pressure system that rotates clockwise in the atmosphere above Antarctica. This helped minimize polar stratospheric cloud formation in the lower stratosphere. The formation and persistence of these clouds are important first steps leading to the chlorine- and bromine-catalyzed reactions that destroy ozone, scientists said. These Antarctic conditions resemble those found in the Arctic, where ozone depletion is much less severe.
In 2016, warmer stratospheric temperatures also constrained the growth of the ozone hole. Last year, the ozone hole reached a maximum 8.9 million square miles, 2 million square miles less than in 2015. The average area of these daily ozone hole maximums observed since 1991 has been roughly 10 million square miles.
Although warmer-than-average stratospheric weather conditions have reduced ozone depletion during the past two years, the current ozone hole area is still large because levels of ozone-depleting substances like chlorine and bromine remain high enough to produce significant ozone loss.
Scientists said the smaller ozone hole extent in 2016 and 2017 is due to natural variability and not a signal of rapid healing.
First detected in 1985, the Antarctic ozone hole forms during the Southern Hemisphere’s late winter as the returning sun’s rays catalyze reactions involving man-made, chemically active forms of chlorine and bromine. These reactions destroy ozone molecules.
Thirty years ago, the international community signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and began regulating ozone-depleting compounds. The ozone hole over Antarctica is expected to gradually become less severe as chlorofluorocarbons—chlorine-containing synthetic compounds once frequently used as refrigerants – continue to decline. Scientists expect the Antarctic ozone hole to recover back to 1980 levels around 2070.
Ozone is a molecule comprised of three oxygen atoms that occurs naturally in small amounts. In the stratosphere, roughly 7 to 25 miles above Earth’s surface, the ozone layer acts like sunscreen, shielding the planet from potentially harmful ultraviolet radiation that can cause skin cancer and cataracts, suppress immune systems and also damage plants. Closer to the ground, ozone can also be created by photochemical reactions between the sun and pollution from vehicle emissions and other sources, forming harmful smog.
Although warmer-than-average stratospheric weather conditions have reduced ozone depletion during the past two years, the current ozone hole area is still large compared to the 1980s, when the depletion of the ozone layer above Antarctica was first detected. This is because levels of ozone-depleting substances like chlorine and bromine remain high enough to produce significant ozone loss.
![ozone9.11[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/ozone9-111.png?resize=716%2C716&quality=75)
NASA and NOAA monitor the ozone hole via three complementary instrumental methods. Satellites, like NASA’s Aura satellite and NASA-NOAA Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership satellite measure ozone from space. The Aura satellite’s Microwave Limb Sounder also measures certain chlorine-containing gases, providing estimates of total chlorine levels.
NOAA scientists monitor the thickness of the ozone layer and its vertical distribution above the South Pole station by regularly releasing weather balloons carrying ozone-measuring “sondes” up to 21 miles in altitude, and with a ground-based instrument called a Dobson spectrophotometer.
The Dobson spectrophotometer measures the total amount of ozone in a column extending from Earth’s surface to the edge of space in Dobson Units, defined as the number of ozone molecules that would be required to create a layer of pure ozone 0.01 millimeters thick at a temperature of 32 degrees Fahrenheit at an atmospheric pressure equivalent to Earth’s surface.
This year, the ozone concentration reached a minimum over the South Pole of 136 Dobson Units on September 25— the highest minimum seen since 1988. During the 1960s, before the Antarctic ozone hole occurred, average ozone concentrations above the South Pole ranged from 250 to 350 Dobson units. Earth’s ozone layer averages 300 to 500 Dobson units, which is equivalent to about 3 millimeters, or about the same as two pennies stacked one on top of the other.
“In the past, we’ve always seen ozone at some stratospheric altitudes go to zero by the end of September,” said Bryan Johnson, NOAA atmospheric chemist. “This year our balloon measurements showed the ozone loss rate stalled by the middle of September and ozone levels never reached zero.”
Anthony’s thoughts on the issue:
While this is good news, it may not be related to the CFC reductions from the Montreal Protocol.
While there are claims that the shrinking ozone hole is due entirely to CFC reductions, it has been suggested that the ozone hole has been a permanent feature of Antarctica for millennia, and that it is a product of cold, wind patterns, and lack of sunlight in Antarctica’s deep freeze dark winter. Ozone in the upper atmosphere is manufactured by the interaction of sunlight, specifically the ultraviolet spectrum:
Stratospheric ozone. Stratospheric ozone is formed naturally by chemical reactions involving solar ultraviolet radiation (sunlight) and oxygen molecules, which make up 21% of the atmosphere. In the first step, solar ultraviolet radiation breaks apart one oxygen molecule (O2) to produce two oxygen atoms (2 O) (see Figure Q2-1). In the second step, each of these highly reactive atoms combines with an oxygen molecule to produce an ozone molecule (O3). These reactions occur continually whenever solar ultraviolet radiation is present in the stratosphere. As a result, the largest ozone production occurs in the tropical stratosphere.
The production of stratospheric ozone is balanced by its destruction in chemical reactions. Ozone reacts continually with sunlight and a wide variety of natural and human produced chemicals in the stratosphere. In each reaction, an ozone molecule is lost and other chemical compounds are produced. Important reactive gases that destroy ozone are hydrogen and nitrogen oxides and those containing chlorine and bromine.
Source: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/twentyquestions/Q2.pdf
Yes, and without sunlight, ozone production stops, and the chemical reactions take over. Cold is also a big factor in the atmospheric chemistry process. This is why the ozone hole over Antarctica is a seasonal phenomenon.
Low polar temperatures. The severe ozone destruction represented by the ozone hole requires that low temperatures be present over a range of stratospheric altitudes, over large geographical regions, and for extended time periods. Low temperatures are important because they allow liquid and solid PSCs to form. Reactions on the surfaces of these PSCs initiate a remarkable increase in the most reactive chlorine gas, chlorine monoxide (ClO) (see below and Q8). Stratospheric temperatures are lowest in both polar regions in winter. In the Antarctic winter, minimum daily temperatures are generally much lower and less variable than in the Arctic winter (see Figure Q10-1). Antarctic temperatures also remain below the PSC formation temperature for much longer periods during winter. These and other meteorological differences occur because of the unequal distribution among land, ocean, and mountains between the hemispheres at middle and high latitudes. The winter temperatures are low enough for PSCs to form somewhere in the Antarctic for nearly the entire winter (about 5 months) and in the Arctic for only limited periods (10–60 days) in most winters.
Source: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/twentyquestions/Q10.pdf
While there is evidence that the worst posited offenders (CFC-11, and CFC-12) are in fact purging from the atmosphere, the question remains over whether the ozone hole would ever go away, since we have no data prior to the 1980’s, we just don’t have much data history on it.
We are worried about it now because we can observe it for the first time in human history. The fact that NASA now says a mild winter made the ozone hole the smallest observed since 1988, suggests that it truly is just a seasonal feature of the region and reliant mostly on weather patterns for its year-to-year intensity, rather than being driven entirely by chlorofluorocarbon catalytic depletion. Even the American Geophysical Union admits that the Montreal Protocol seems to have no effect on the change in size of the ozone hole.
Time will tell, the jury is still out on this one.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How inconvenient for this new paper out of U of East Anglia
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/17/11929/2017/
A Growing Threat To The Ozone Layer From Short-lived Anthropogenic Chlorocarbons
I guess it all comes down to what can “potentially” happen from increases of trace gasses in the atmosphere, vs what we have observed as attributable results of recent increases or reductions of those gasses (apparently indistinguishable from natural variations).
Shame that the NASSA scientists talking about The Ozone Layer, don’t bother to read information about The Ozone Layer written by NASSA, NOAA & American Geophysical Union scientists.
“….reactive gases that destroy ozone are hydrogen and nitrogen oxides…”
“Hydrogen oxide”, like “dihydro-monooxide”?
Wow! Really nasty stuff!
Big Business is behind the scenes directing control of Di-hydrogen-monoxide.
DHM is…PEOPLE!
You are making a mockery of this silent killer, tae.
Goodness!!
Are they – perchance – detecting Oxygen dihydride?
Oh – Wow.
Auto
Mods
– Did You Guess?
/SARC (in spades)
Yep, H2O reacts with O3.
I think they’re worried about the hydroxylic acid actually.
That’s very nasty stuff indeed, it dissolves just about everything, and in association with oxygen it is orders of magnitude worse!
Hydrogen Hydroxide?
The unanswered question is just how much the ozone hole is cyclical, as with a good many other weather phenomena. If the cycle is longer than the observation period, there could be a great deal of false attribution of causes to something irrelevant (again).
….perplexing that my CFC’s (next to Lake Ontario), and the CFC’s in Florida and the CFC’s in Poland all open a hole in Antarctica…I got a feeling someone is blowing ozone killing CFCs up my skirt
Tom, what you said about the cycles being longer than the observation period pretty much sums up the whole human experience throughout history. Our lifetimes are too short to see the cyclicality for ourselves, and our view of the past can be distorted by our present paradigm.
Iterating Pop you do make a good point.
Enough with the science.
Our masters will have us know,that just as the colder days coming are PROOF that climate mitigation schemes are working, so the Montreal Protocol has saved us all.
Why as I drove thro British Columbia in September, ash was falling from the sky..Sure proof that the provincial government Carbon Tax is working.
Now it seems I have to warn that some sarcasm might infest these comments.
So Sarc off.
Strangely enough Chicken Little,The Emperor’s New Clothes and most of the old folk tales were “cautionary” tales to encourage people to seek reason over emotion.
As our host points out above, what you previously could not measure,gives no assurance of its prior nonexistence.
The size of the ozone hole depends entirely on the stratospheric vortex power (the velocity of the wind in the stratosphere). This variability can be clearly seen in the chart below.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_ALL_SH_2017.png
So true Ren. Pressure barrier.
Note that in the illustration provided by Anthony, there are anomalously high ozone concentrations just outside of the vortex, as evidenced by the orange and yellow colors. Most ozone is produced in the tropics and moved poleward by Brewer-Dobson circulation. The Antarctic polar vortex prevents the tropical ozone from replenishing the depleted ozone.
[ http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_6/6_3.htm ]
Also a possible combination of the geomagnetic field manipulating diamagnetic O3.
Thanks for saying so Ren.
The Spring ozone hole is an extension of the Winter ozone depletion anomaly first identified by Dobson himself in the late 1950s. The size of the anomaly and the hole is constrained by the size of the vortex that contains it. If the vortex spins out larger, then the ozone inside the vortex tends to spread out wider and thin over a larger area. If the vortex weakens or breaks up (like in the Arctic) then the ozone banking up out side will tend to flood in. This has been known since Dobson.
I find it so strange that NASA focuses on size and not the overall amount of depletion. The original scare was on evidence about reduction in the total thickness — the column measurements over Hadley Bay. Then they went back and looked at the satellite record and found the depletion spread more or less across the inside of the vortex. That was in 1986. So we must have some idea of the total amounts of ozone inside the vortex for dates in October (or averages) across 3 decades — that could be compared in a time series. At least this article mentions the column measurements, but I would still like to see time series graphs of the estimated overall depletion during the Spring. If that is what CFCs is supposed to be affecting, then that is what should be measured. Then the other data could be brought in, Cl, HO, PSC. Why not?
It does not instill confidence when you read clever little juxtapositions of facts like this:
That can only have been written in an effort to deceive.
Guys,
This is a really stupid question. But is there an ozone hole over the Arctic, and if not, why not?
And yes, I am a really stupid person.
THere is never a stupid question, you asked becasue you don’t know. what you have to be careful of are the stupid answers !!!!
OK, but how do you tell if is actually a stupid answer ?
They forget to put the /s at the end, u.k., or they forget mentioning that they are stating their opinion. Sometimes the answer is incoherent because the question was was misconstrued.
Hmm… stuttering might also be a clue…
I had the same question. Wish someone would answer it. (I, also, am not the brightest bulb on the tree when it comes to science).
Answer here:
http://www.theozonehole.com/arcticozone.htm
One possible answer, anyway.
Too much prediction going on there, considering the miniscule chronological legacy of collected data.
If the ‘answer’ is mostly insults and expletives, you can be pretty sure that it is a stupid answer. Otherwise, the worst case scenario is that the answer is just wrong, which will be pointed out by other commenters.
Yes, but it is smaller. LIkely due to (relatively) higher temperatures.
Btw- really stupid people don’t ask good questions.
Though they may occasionally make double posts. Sorry.
How does that square with the fact most CFCs are used/released in the northern hemisphere, or is that an inconvenient question?
Severian
Now that’s a cracking question.
That had never occurred to me.
How come I don’t get to think of the good questions? Or is that a silly question?
🙂
Yes, but it is smaller. LIkely due to (relatively) higher temperatures.
Btw- really stupid people don’t ask good questions.
No.
some reasons:
1) It is warmer, less stratospheric cloud formation.
2) Air circulation from more southerly areas, bringing ozone with it.
The Antarctic circumpolar winds effectively block out air transport, and isolate the air mass over Antarctica. The ozone then decays in the absence of sunlight.
The Arctic polar vortex, also known as the Jet Stream is analogous, but is not the same. Arctic air does not get isolated like Antarctic air does.
Note that in the absence of sunlight, ozone decays all on its own, and levels drop naturally. That is why we see the depletion during the antarctic night.
if the antarctic circumpolar winds block out air transport how did the man made cfc’s get to the antarctic stratosphere to create a bigger hole in the ozone, hmmm?
i am sure i read a paper last year that discovered a new process by marine plankton/phytoplankton that was found to be the first natural occurrence of cfc production , can’t seem to find it now though.
@ur momisugly bitchilly
A) You, and others are asking inconvenient question. Stop it. {/sark}
B) Correct, it seems that marine based processes dominate the production of atmospheric chlorine compounds, after all. It is another inconvenient fact you are politely asked to not notice.
C) In spite of the Montreal Protocol, several Asian countries continued producing CFCs unabated. Eventually they would produce more CFCs than the US and Europe ever did. Another inconvenient fact, please do not notice. (I do not know if they are still at it, but they were as late as 2010. I suspect they are.)
D) The whole halogen/ozone thing may be a huge crock. There is good reason to believe it is.
There is another mechanism that is missing entirely from this discussion which is the GCR mechanism proposed by Prof Lu from here in Waterloo. Not only did propose it, show it from the satellite record, but also duplicated the chemistry in his lab.
Another culprit that got a minor mention is bromine. Bromine in the atmosphere is largely (65%) produced by the ocean where there is a great deal of it, believe it or not. Bromine molecules may not be as individually destructive as certain CFC’s, but there is a heck of a lot more of it.
“Most organic bromine can be grouped into three classes-methyl bromide, the man-made Halons, and a group of shorter-lived, naturally occurring species (e.g., CH2Br2, CHBr3, etc.). Methyl bromide, which originates from an array of natural and anthropogenic sources, constitutes the major source of bromine to the stratosphere, contributing about half of the 20 ppt Br believed to be present there.
“The Halons, a group of long-lived compounds of strictly anthropogenic origin, are believed to contribute currently about 35% to this present-day stratospheric bromine burden, while the shorter-lived species (which emanate primarily from the oceans) contribute about 15%. Due to their link to ozone depletion, regulations are now in place (in the case of the Halons) or are soon to be in place (in the case of methyl bromide) to eliminate the production and sales of these species. Thus, the ensuing decades should see a reduction in the stratospheric burden of organic bromine.”
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-37055-0_4?no-access=true
Let’s not over-concentrate on halogens and humans. The ozone hole will still be there a billion years from today.
TonyL
So if I get what you’re saying right in point 1) warmer air, higher in the stratosphere isn’t good for ozone holes because there are fewer clouds. Sunlight is good for ozone? And ozone protects humans from nasty stuff?
And point 2) suggests to me that air circulation robs the southern hemisphere of ozone, to the benefit of the northern hemisphere, which I’m not sure I understand because if it’s air circulation, surely it’s not a one way street.
However, irrespective of that, the ozone hole is smaller in the NH and bigger in the SH. And now I see the answer to part of 1) – sunlight is essential to produce ozone to protect humans from the nasty stuff. But we scientific simpletons are led to believe by the media that sunlight and ozone destruction go hand in hand.
And I think I understand that thanks to the jet stream, air circulation is better in the NH than in the SH so stratospheric clouds are formed and dispersed more rapidly than in the SH where the more sluggish stratospheric conditions don’t allow sunlight to increase ozone.
Am I close?
Aw sh*t
This is doing my head in.
The Aussies in the SH get fried because of the lack of ozone, but sunlight stimulates ozone production.
In the NH, we have lousy, rainy weather, and lots of ozone.
That suggests to me, there is tons of stratospheric cloud in the SH, and little in the NH, but lots of normal clouds in the NH, and not much normal cloud in the SH?????????????
No wonder I was so crap at science at school. It’s just so counter intuitive.
@ur momisugly HotScot
Just to clarify a few points:
Stratospheric clouds – The clouds are frozen particles of ice. Apparently the solid surface catalyses the reactions which destroy ozone, speeding up those reactions. This is the first I have heard of this theory, so I can not comment much on it.
The Antarctic hole – Hard UV from the sun is what makes ozone. Directly at the South Pole, in winter, the sun never rises for 5 months. It is completely dark for these months. As a result, there is *no* ozone production at all. Whatever ozone there is, simply decays back to common molecular oxygen over time. This will happen with or without the halogens. The atmosphere depends on UV from the sun to continually make ozone, because ozone is continually being consumed by a variety of chemical reactions.
Hope this helps.
Look up the magnetic conductivity of Oxygen vs Ozone, in order to conserve energy, the UV passing thru the atmosphere converts O2 to O3 as its magnetic reluctance is two orders of magnitude lower, in the shade it converts back. Simple electromagnetic processes in action, has been and will always be the driving force in “hole production”. Scammers will scam, lairs will lie!
TonyL November 4, 2017 at 7:09 pm
@ur momisugly HotScot
Just to clarify a few points:
Stratospheric clouds – The clouds are frozen particles of ice. Apparently the solid surface catalyses the reactions which destroy ozone, speeding up those reactions. This is the first I have heard of this theory, so I can not comment much on it.
The Antarctic hole – Hard UV from the sun is what makes ozone. Directly at the South Pole, in winter, the sun never rises for 5 months. It is completely dark for these months. As a result, there is *no* ozone production at all. Whatever ozone there is, simply decays back to common molecular oxygen over time. This will happen with or without the halogens. The atmosphere depends on UV from the sun to continually make ozone, because ozone is continually being consumed by a variety of chemical reactions.
Hope this helps.
No it doesn’t because it’s factually incorrect, O3 over the antarctic does not decay over time during the polar winter, it drops dramatically when the stratosphere warms up and UV light returns. O3 is dissociated by UV (longer wavelength than the O2 dissociation).
The O3 minimum occurs in October when the temperature has risen above the PSC temperature, see Figure Q10-1 Source: NOAA ESRL in the original post by Anthony.
U.k.
Through volume (increasing knowledge) & your own mind ;). One then begins to develop a sense of smell of cowpoo when told it.
The Montreal Protocol and the Paris Agreement have set out to control two chemical processes that may be only slightly under our control. The following paper addresses a possible physical process that is not at all under our control but may help explain the Ozone Hole, mid-latitude jet stream behavior, Arctic warming, and ice age cycles. The linking cause has only recently been noticed and is currently being evaluated. Read the paper, weigh the evidence and logic, and then join in discussing its possibilities.
https://www.harrytodd.org
harry
I stopped reading there where you said you believe in man made warming [from carbon]
henryp
I think that’s a bit mean, there is a case for man mad warming,no matter how small.
However, I read, and understood little of the science, because I’m not a scientist, but the last statement blew it for me: “magnetic poles control the weather”.
Even an ignoramus like me recognises there are innumerable influences on weather. Magnetic poles may be one of them, but like CO2, certainly not the silver bullet.
hot scot
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3gl/from:1987/to:2018/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2018/trend/plot/esrl-amo/from:1987/to:2018/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2018/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1987/to:2018
0.005% of mass of carbon added to the atmosphere warming the oceans by 0.3 K since 1987… That carbon must be a miracle maker….
Like I have said before, besides your CO2 there are at least three other options that are very much more likely to be the cause of warming, i.e.
1) the window of ozone/peroxide/N-oxide manufactured TOA allowed more heat (UV) into the oceans, making them a bit warmer.
2) the elephant in the room is moving – north east to be precise. Come down 1 km into a gold mine here in South Africa and you will quickly realize how big that elephant really is..
3) I have noted in places where they turned a desert into an oasis, like Las Vegas, minima rose sharply over the past 40 years. OTOH, where they cut the trees, in Tandil, ARG, minima sharply fell. So, this is one of the most ironic of my findings: we all want more trees, lawns and crops, yet this traps heat – as a matter of fact. The same can be said for the oceans – that are also getting greener, apparently.
So, I don’t know anymore what to say. 1) and 2) indicate that warming is natural. You cannot stop the sun and you cannot stop the elephant. I think we are lucky that God gives us more warming these days.
3) indicates that if you want more greenery it will trap some heat. What do want us to do about that?
henryp: I believe we should keep the atmosphere as clean as we can, i.e. hairspray, CFCs, carbon dioxide. Furthermore, I think the physical processes that I uncovered far outweigh the manmade chemical effects. And I am disappointed that you stopped reading my investigation and discovery. I wrote it in a way that might be understandable to semi-scientists with Google access.
You could learn a lot of real science by reading my investigation. Just punch up this link and sit back with a glass of wine and some imagination. (Thanks for replying in the first place.)
https://www.harrytodd.org
Henryp,
It’s actually a very interesting read. In fact I had been mulling over Ozone, atmospheric fluid dynamics, and UV insolation for a few months.
Recent WUWT articles and Harry’s take on it has been quite I intriguing.
I adhere to complexity processes. With climate there’s no “one thing” besides Sol, everything else modulates.
Harry,
Interesting stuff.
Additionally CFCs are naturally produced. Why should we pretend we can’t do what nature does?
http://cfc.geologist-1011.net
This gets me to thinking, I need yo sit down and write out which of the the dozen or so CFC compounds end up with unpaired electrons.
Perhaps the polar vortices, and geomagnetism, are aligned to concentrate CFC compounds to the poles centrally.
Great as I type this I need to see if there’s any data on CFC concentrations too.
I want to give a big shout out to Swype for autocorrecting my Comment into grammatical hell.
HotScot: If you bother to read my website, you can understand it better by punching the colored reference links as you go along. It’s not rocket science; I’m a geologist.
I’ve always wondered, if ozone is depleted in the normal ozone layer and an ozone hole forms, why doesn’t ozone simply form below that level as the UV-C passes through the hole and increases in lower levels of atmosphere?
maybe the geomagnetic structuring at the pole with the land mass?
Two reasons:
A) Do not ask questions like that.
B) At lower levels the air pressure is higher, so maybe the rate of ozone recombination is greater, preventing ozone buildup to an appreciable level. We note that the level of ozone is a balance between the rate of UV production and the rate of recombination.
TonyL,
Ozone has no problem surviving at low altitudes in places like the Los Angeles basin!
@ur momisugly Clyde Spencer
{Snicker}
Lots of ozone in the Blue Ridge and Great Smokey Mountains, too. I can only imagine that the rate of production is enormous. I can only speculate on the rate of destruction. I suppose that someone, somewhere, has calculated the mean lifetime of an ozone molecule at the temperature and near sea level pressure of these locations.
I wonder what the stratosphere ozone level would look like if we imposed the sea-level molecule lifetime onto stratospheric ozone. We could do the calculation using a *GASP* Model !
TonyL,
Ozone is metastable and has a short half-life. However, in rarefied air, it only comes into contact with other molecules infrequently. On the other hand, with higher concentrations of oxygen, there are a far greater number of potential ozone molecules to be created. I have long suspected that UV-C that makes it through the stratosphere will be absorbed at lower altitudes by converting the more abundant oxygen to ozone. Unfortunately, there are actually very few measurements of absolute intensity of UV-C at ground level anywhere. Even the Dobson Spectrometer uses ratios (not absolute intensity) of UV bands to calculate ozone. The ozone scare was a lot of hand-waving, with little actual substance.
@ur momisugly Clyde Spencer
UV-C is given as 100-280 nm.
100-200 is absorbed by diatomic oxygen. If you want to do UV spectroscopy in this range you need a Vacuum UV spectrometer. I saw a V-UV spectrometer a Prof. had built. The main body was a Torpedo Tube from a WWII submarine. Something like 18 or 24 feet long. The torpedo loading hatch was used for access to the sample holder.
Back in the day:
The common Mercury Pen Lamp made ozone in abundant quantity. You could easily smell it. This was due to mercury lines below 200 nm. Eventually, some clever people came up with a quartz envelope which blocked the light from ~200 nm on down. This solved the ozone production problem and made the lamps more pleasant to work with. The range of this UV in air is measured in centimeters, not meters.
So:
100-200 nm – Blocked by molecular oxygen, none at ground level.
200-280 nm – Screened out by the ozone layer. At ground level, little to none.
Regardless of whether 200-280 nm is absorbed or not, it does not have the energy to cleave the O2 bond to make ozone. IIRC you need ~190 nm or shorter to make ozone. (In the absence of VOCs, of course)
And that is why you do not see UV-C ground measurements.
Robert W Turner: My website shows that SH ozone emanates from a paramagnetic oxygen doughnut collected by the eccentric South Magnetic Pole. Plow through my site and you will understand why it’s true.
https://www.harrytodd.org
Well the higher energy UV-C is absorbed by oxygen so it doesn’t make it through, also O3 is destroyed when it absorbs UV radiation.
Ozone is produced by UV in the highest layers of the stratosphere and the lower mesosphere (above the equator).
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_sh.gif
1) Ozone is manufactured in the upper atmosphere as a response to sunlight.
2) There is less sunlight over the poles.
3) Hairspray.
Climate science was avante-garde absurdist poetry all along, and we never realized it!
Lol
Now the ozone hole disappears rapidly, at very low geomagnetic activity.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_SH_2017.png
The “Hole in the Ozone Layer” was a ruse to see if they can get mass hysteria going to pull off the big daddy scare-“catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” aka “climate change” to scare us in to destroying human civilisation and surrendering our freedoms along with any wealth.
As it is something that few institutions , let alone individuals could actually measure, the “results” had to be accepted as presented. Any group that tried (if they could get the funding) to make their own measurements could be accused of having faulty equipment.
Remember, the scams only have to be believed until people are deceived in to signing a contract that ties them in to the scam. Then the scammers can move to the next big scare.
Eventually, we will be conned in to signing away our freedom after we have been conned out of our wealth.
That sounds good, but IMHO it attributes far too much advance planning to “them”.
Liars rarely plan, the lie just get bigger and bigger until a child recognises the King has no clothes.
Once the lie starts, no one want’s to be called a liar, so they just add a tiny lie to the rest of the tiny lies.
Kind of like Chinese whispers. No one deliberately conveys the wrong information, it’s just misunderstood in it’s conveyance, with the little lie thrown in to make the conveyor feel superior to the conveyee.
Well I’ll inject my tuppenny’s worth for new readers, whom I’ll caution that old readers haven’t been impressed!
1) no one remarks on my point that the ozone hole is fringed by a thick zone of ozone like a roll-neck collar, which is clearly a redistribution of ozone and thereby reduces or maybe eliminates the actual loss.
2)(second penny) diatomic oxygen (normal) is paramagnetic and so is attracted by a strong magnetic field, whereas ozone is diamagnetic and so pushed away from a strong magnetic field. This strong field is created by magnetic lines of force converging together at the north and south magnetic poles. Its argued that these forces are weak but I am arguing that together, they are likely to cause at least some separation of the two molecules. Moreover it better explains why there is a collar of rolled back ozone around the hole! How does a chemical reaction do that? Crickets again I predict.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=91212
The brighter green is about 350 DU and the orange is ~500 DU. No mention of this staring – in-your-face fact.
Please mods, don’t hold this one up long it is a seminal discussion of the physics with no bad words.
The highest temperature on the top of the stratosphere shows that most ozone particles are produced on the opposite side of the magnetic pole.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00944/4uw9dzjdlcrw.png
The magnetic field explains the differences in the strength of the polar vortices in the north and south.
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/charts/jpg/polar_s_z.jpg
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/charts/jpg/polar_n_z.jpg
Ozone is DIAMAGNETIC there are no unpaired electrons. Oxygen O2 is actually paramagnetic with 2 unpaired electrons.
The polar vortex forecast shows how the air will circulate.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f72.png
good question gary, i await an answer with interest . maybe ren can explain ?
Gary:
Oxygen is paramagnetic so is repulsed by a magnetic field, which is how a paramagnetic oxygen detecting cell works. I have never bought n ozone detecting cell. The mechanism you propose should have the opposite effect described, if it works.
Ozone depletion is natural and happens all over the world all the time, not just in the Antarctic dark, as it is a chemical reaction with species that are distributed all over the world. The wind barrier in winter and the lack of sunlight to create replacement molecules means the level drops in the dark.
There should be multiple ways to prove this: locate the same ‘destructive molecules’ else where. Measure the ozone at sunset. Measure the ozone just before sunrise. Is the concentration always a little lower or not?
Where there is time and air currents to mix, as described in the northern winter, ozone should be reduced less as it is better mixed, however the total amount should decrease because of the large area no longer generating it (because it is turned away from the sun). Yes or no?
“Oxygen is paramagnetic so is repulsed by a magnetic field…”
Paramagnetic materials have fields induced to align with an external magnetic field, and so are attracted, just like bar magnets attract when they are aligned N to S.
Gary,
You are one of the few people who have noticed the obviously high concentrations of ozone ringing the so-called ‘hole.’ I attribute it to the effect of the circumpolar vortex.
[ http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_6/6_3.htm ]
Clyde Spencer: Yes, Gary noticed an important piece of physical evidence that initiated my investigation of the role of paramagnetic oxygen in global climate change. You can study the solution on my website:
https://www.harrytodd.org
Chapman Reactions
The “M” in this reaction is any third molecule: M absorbs the heat from this reaction. The increasing temperature profile of the stratosphere results from this reaction.
http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/molsim/teaching/fall2008/ozone/Ozone%20website_files/Page603.htm
Gary Pearse: You noticed it! That ozone collar lies above an oxygen collar held at the latitude of the South Magnetic Pole. Please take the time and energy to read my website:
https://www.harrytodd.org
You are the first WUWT reader that has commented on the key ingredient to an entirely fresh approach to climate change. Thank you!
Gary & Ren
I’m appreciated your inputs and, frankly, I feel I’ve Commented too soon since reading through all the Replies I have not added new lol
“This is why the ozone hole over Antarctica is a seasonal phenomenon.”
WR: What about the ozone hole during a glacial?
Wim
Do you mean a glacial period ?
Yes Ozonebust, I meant a glacial period. The ozone hole is season / temperature dependent. What must the effect have been (on the ozone hole and so on nature) in case of a structural lower temperature like in a glacial period? Because of the Polar Amplification polar temperatures must have been far below present polar temperatures.
I think I would treat anything from U of East Anglia with grave suspicion.
here is a paradox:
Amongst a few other things, climate depends a lot on ‘God’s Window”, the amount of heat (UV) coming through to heat the land and the oceans (70% of earth). Percentage wise, a large amount of relevant energetic radiation let through that window depends on the concentration of ozone, peroxides and N-oxides manufactured TOA by the interaction of the sun’s most energetic radiation and the atmosphere.If that process did not happen TOA we would all be dead. [hence, don’t go to Mars, as you will not be protected there from the suns’ most deadly radiation].
Now, I looked at the spectra of ozone and peroxide and found a stunning similarity.It does exactly the same thing, deflecting a lot of bad UV-C radiation.
My theory is that above the SH {which is covered mostly by ocean} there are more OH radicals to form peroxide rather then ozone.
Can somebody check the H2O2 inside the hole, please?
Warming due to CO2 or Halogenated Hydrocarbons?
Qing-bin Lu provides an alternative theory with evidence that the anthropogenic warming is NOT due to CO2 but to halogenated hydrocarbons.
COSMIC-RAY-DRIVEN REACTION AND GREENHOUSE EFFECT OF HALOGENATED MOLECULES: CULPRITS FOR ATMOSPHERIC OZONE DEPLETION AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
QB Lu Department of Physics and Astronomy and Departments of Biology and Chemistry, University
of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Abstract
This study is focused on the effects of cosmic rays (solar activity) and halogen-containing molecules (mainly chlorofluorocarbons—CFCs) on atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change. Brief reviews are first given on the cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced-reaction (CRE) theory for O3 depletion and the warming theory of halogenated molecules for climate change. Then natural and anthropogenic contributions to these phenomena are examined in detail and separated well through in-depth statistical analyses of comprehensive measured datasets of quantities, including cosmic rays (CRs), total solar irradiance, sunspot number, halogenated gases (CFCs, CCl4 and HCFCs), CO, total O3, lower stratospheric temperatures and global surface temperatures. For O3 depletion, it is shown that an analytical equation derived from the CRE theory reproduces well 11-year cyclic variations of polar O3 loss and stratospheric cooling, and new statistical analyses of the CRE equation with observed data of total O3 and stratospheric temperature give high linear correlation coefficients 0.92. After the removal of the CR effect, a pronounced recovery by 20~25% of the Antarctic O3 hole is found, while no recovery of O3 loss in mid-latitudes has been observed. These results show both the correctness and dominance of the CRE mechanism and the success of the Montreal Protocol. For global climate change, in-depth analyses of the observed data clearly show that the solar effect and human-made halogenated gases played the dominant role in Earth’s climate change prior to and after 1970, respectively. Remarkably,a statistical analysis gives a nearly zero correlation coefficient (R=0.05) between corrected global surface temperature data by removing the solar effect and CO2 concentration during 1850-1970.
In striking contrast, a nearly perfect linear correlation with coefficients as high as 0.96-0.97 is found between corrected or uncorrected global surface temperature and total amount of stratospheric halogenated gases during 1970-2012. Furthermore, a new theoretical calculation on the greenhouse effect of halogenated gases shows that they (mainly CFCs) could alone result in the global surface temperature rise of ~0.6 C in 1970-2002. These results provide solid evidence that recent global warming was indeed caused by the greenhouse effect of anthropogenic halogenated gases. Thus, a slow reversal of global temperature to the 1950 value is predicted for coming 5~7 decades. It is also expected that the global sea level will continue to rise in coming 1~2 decades until the effect of the global temperature recovery dominates over that of the polar O3 hole recovery; after that, both will drop concurrently. All the observed, analytical and theoretical results presented lead to a convincing conclusion that both the CRE mechanism and the CFC-warming mechanism not only provide new fundamental understandings of the O3 hole and global climate change but have superior predictive capabilities, compared with the conventional models.
Keywords: Cosmic rays; chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs); ozone depletion; ozone hole; global warming; global cooling
New Theories And Predictions On The Ozone Hole And Climate Change By Lu Qing-bin, World Scientific, Jun 11, 2015 – Science – 308 pages
David
I find a high probability of 50% for a natural process. Ozone is increasing both in the SH and the NH since 1995.
I hope not. It was cold back then.
Thanks David, saves me from posting that or his earlier exploratory works. There is a hilarious discussion between Prof Lu and Eli Rabett in which Eli tries to prove the effect is not real (and loses).
Please note Prof Lu’s references about bromine molecules in this process, the great % of which are from the ocean, i.e. natural.
Interesting Sciency Gobbledygook! The supposed theory regarding CFCs and the Ozone Hole depend on CFC products reaching far above the Stratosphere meaning the top of the air column, not the bottom! No study to date has EVER found CFC Products in the extremely cold upper atmosphere where the Ozone Hole is located. Additionally, there is absolutely NO Mechanism to move such unfounded CFC Products to the Southern Hemisphere and somehow Concentrate them over the South Pole! Quig-bin should concentrate on developing any GHG effect on lower atmospheric warming and forget about the total BS of CFCs and the Ozone Hole!
sz939 Let us know when you have read, studied and comprehended Quig-Bin Lu’s theory. You further ignore all the evidence for the Montreal protocol. Your argument is scientifically illogical as science cannot prove a negative.
Contrast Lu’s quantitative evidence:
“Data from satellite, balloon, and ground-station measurements show that ozone loss is strongly correlated with cosmic-ray ionization-rate variations with altitude, latitude, and time. Moreover, our laboratory data indicate that the dissociation induced by cosmic rays for CF2Cl2 and CFCl3 on ice surfaces in the polar stratosphere at an altitude of ∼15 km is quite efficient, with estimated rates of 4.3×10−5 and 3.6×10−4s−1, respectively. These findings suggest that dissociation of chlorofluorocarbons by capture of electrons produced by cosmic rays and localized in polar stratospheric cloud ice may play a significant role in causing the ozone hole.”
Received 27 February 2001″
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.078501 etc.
Sounds logical to me sz939. Presuming CFCs are (Ali Baba supplies it) and have been released mostly in the Northern hemisphere, how did they all travel above Antarctica and not Arctic?
sz939: Transport the paramagnetic oxygen poleward, then convert to ozone. Yes, there is a mechanism.
https://www.harrytodd.org
Dump the Brewer-Dobson slow stratospheric migration theory.
sz939 November 4, 2017 at 6:55 pm
The supposed theory regarding CFCs and the Ozone Hole depend on CFC products reaching far above the Stratosphere meaning the top of the air column, not the bottom! No study to date has EVER found CFC Products in the extremely cold upper atmosphere where the Ozone Hole is located.
Actually the first stratospheric measurements of CFCs were made in 1975 and have been repeated many times since.
Although the Ozone hole may be smaller this year, what about the overall level of Ozone in the Atmosphere?
The last graph I saw showed no improvement in Ozone levels after the Montreal Protocol, just s slow steady decline.
AC Osborn
ozone is increasing, due to natural processes>
To my ignorant eyes the chart appears to show ozone following PDO, El Nino, La Nina, 1982 eruption of El Chichón, and the Mt Pinatubo 1991 eruption.
Here is my take based on a bit of logic.
The population of the northern hemisphere is far larger than the southern hemisphere therefore
more CFC 11 & CFC 12 was used in the northern hemisphere however
the ozone hole in the southern hemisphere is larger than the northern hemisphere therefore
the science is a crock full of cow rear end expelled material..
Very clever!
The ozone hole is presented as evidence of chemical depletion of ozone by mankind’s pollution of the stratosphere with ozone depleting substances and used to support the formation of the unep and its implementation of the montreal protocol. The reality is that the ozone hole is a cyclical localized phenomenon having to do with the distribution of ozone from the tropics to the south polar region by the brewer dobson circulation; and not formed by global chemical destruction of ozone. Here are some links to trends in global ozone levels.
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2757711
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2719537
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2748016
More at
https://ssrn.com/author=2220942
chaamjamal: Brewer-Dobson circulation was a mistake. Current total ozone mapping shows that ozone is formed at higher latitudes and not much at the equator. My website develops a new theory based on tropospheric transport of paramagnetic oxygen. It is worth your reading. Please get back with me when you understand what I have proposed.
https://www.harrytodd.org
The fact that the jury is still out on the causes of the ‘Ozone Hole” will not stop the Judges of the CAGW Court commenting and giving a lot of false attribution of the causes to something in CAGW or CFCs.
So 24/7/365 war, lack of work thus less eating, and lots of welfare all help the environment?
It’s all good!