Earth’s ‘ozone hole’ shrinks to lowest since 1988

From NASA Goddard:

Warm Air Helped Make 2017 Ozone Hole Smallest Since 1988

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.

Ozone depletion occurs in cold temperatures, so the ozone hole reaches its annual maximum in September or October, at the end of winter in the Southern Hemisphere. Credits: NASA/NASA Ozone Watch/Katy Mersmann

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 surfacethe 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]
At its peak on Sept. 11, 2017, the ozone hole extended across an area nearly two and a half times the size of the continental United States. The purple and blue colors are areas with the least ozone. Credits: NASA/NASA Ozone Watch/Katy Mersmann

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.

Figure Q10-1 Source: NOAA ESRL

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.

CFC concentrations in Earth’s atmosphere. Source: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/hats/graphs/graphs.html

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
203 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pop Piasa
November 4, 2017 11:56 am

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

Pop Piasa
November 4, 2017 12:14 pm

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).

November 4, 2017 12:18 pm

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.

janus100
November 4, 2017 12:30 pm

“….reactive gases that destroy ozone are hydrogen and nitrogen oxides…”

“Hydrogen oxide”, like “dihydro-monooxide”?

Wow! Really nasty stuff!

Reply to  janus100
November 4, 2017 2:36 pm

Big Business is behind the scenes directing control of Di-hydrogen-monoxide.
DHM is…PEOPLE!

Bernie
Reply to  taekovuhoser
November 5, 2017 4:52 am

You are making a mockery of this silent killer, tae.

Auto
Reply to  janus100
November 4, 2017 2:42 pm

Goodness!!

Are they – perchance – detecting Oxygen dihydride?

Oh – Wow.

Auto
Mods
– Did You Guess?
/SARC (in spades)

Urederra
Reply to  janus100
November 4, 2017 3:08 pm

Yep, H2O reacts with O3.

catweazle666
Reply to  janus100
November 4, 2017 3:36 pm

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!

Mick
Reply to  janus100
November 4, 2017 3:59 pm

Hydrogen Hydroxide?

Tom Halla
November 4, 2017 12:45 pm

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).

ricksanchez769
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 4, 2017 5:13 pm

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.

….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

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 4, 2017 6:43 pm

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.

Vicus
Reply to  Pop Piasa
November 6, 2017 5:38 pm

Iterating Pop you do make a good point.

John Robertson
November 4, 2017 12:58 pm

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.

ren
November 4, 2017 12:59 pm

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

Macha
Reply to  ren
November 4, 2017 3:56 pm

So true Ren. Pressure barrier.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  ren
November 4, 2017 6:28 pm

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 ]

Vicus
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 6, 2017 5:42 pm

Also a possible combination of the geomagnetic field manipulating diamagnetic O3.

Reply to  ren
November 5, 2017 4:08 pm

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:

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.

That can only have been written in an effort to deceive.

November 4, 2017 1:01 pm

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.

andy in epsom
Reply to  HotScot
November 4, 2017 1:13 pm

THere is never a stupid question, you asked becasue you don’t know. what you have to be careful of are the stupid answers !!!!

u.k.(us)
Reply to  andy in epsom
November 4, 2017 4:51 pm

OK, but how do you tell if is actually a stupid answer ?

Pop Piasa
Reply to  andy in epsom
November 4, 2017 7:38 pm

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.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  andy in epsom
November 4, 2017 7:44 pm

Hmm… stuttering might also be a clue…

daveandrews723
Reply to  HotScot
November 4, 2017 1:18 pm

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).

rd50
Reply to  daveandrews723
November 4, 2017 2:13 pm
Pop Piasa
Reply to  daveandrews723
November 4, 2017 7:22 pm

One possible answer, anyway.
Too much prediction going on there, considering the miniscule chronological legacy of collected data.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  daveandrews723
November 4, 2017 7:23 pm

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.

F. Leghorn
Reply to  HotScot
November 4, 2017 2:00 pm

Yes, but it is smaller. LIkely due to (relatively) higher temperatures.

Btw- really stupid people don’t ask good questions.

F. Leghorn
Reply to  F. Leghorn
November 4, 2017 2:02 pm

Though they may occasionally make double posts. Sorry.

Severian
Reply to  F. Leghorn
November 4, 2017 2:15 pm

How does that square with the fact most CFCs are used/released in the northern hemisphere, or is that an inconvenient question?

Reply to  F. Leghorn
November 4, 2017 4:45 pm

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?

🙂

F. Leghorn
Reply to  HotScot
November 4, 2017 2:00 pm

Yes, but it is smaller. LIkely due to (relatively) higher temperatures.

Btw- really stupid people don’t ask good questions.

TonyL
Reply to  HotScot
November 4, 2017 2:10 pm

is there an ozone hole over the Arctic

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.

bitchilly
Reply to  TonyL
November 4, 2017 2:33 pm

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.

TonyL
Reply to  TonyL
November 4, 2017 3:03 pm

@ 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.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  TonyL
November 4, 2017 3:35 pm

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.

Reply to  TonyL
November 4, 2017 5:19 pm

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?

Reply to  TonyL
November 4, 2017 5:32 pm

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.

TonyL
Reply to  TonyL
November 4, 2017 7:09 pm

@ 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.

Reply to  TonyL
November 5, 2017 7:28 pm

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!

Reply to  TonyL
November 6, 2017 7:31 am

TonyL November 4, 2017 at 7:09 pm
@ 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.

Vicus
Reply to  HotScot
November 6, 2017 5:45 pm

U.k.

Through volume (increasing knowledge) & your own mind ;). One then begins to develop a sense of smell of cowpoo when told it.

November 4, 2017 1:01 pm

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

Reply to  harrytodd
November 4, 2017 1:49 pm

harry
I stopped reading there where you said you believe in man made warming [from carbon]

Reply to  henryp
November 4, 2017 5:44 pm

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.

Reply to  henryp
November 4, 2017 10:32 pm

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?

Reply to  henryp
November 5, 2017 3:59 pm

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.

Reply to  henryp
November 5, 2017 4:16 pm

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

Vicus
Reply to  henryp
November 6, 2017 6:13 pm

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.

Vicus
Reply to  henryp
November 6, 2017 6:14 pm

I want to give a big shout out to Swype for autocorrecting my Comment into grammatical hell.

Reply to  harrytodd
November 5, 2017 4:24 pm

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.

Robert W Turner
November 4, 2017 1:07 pm

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?

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Robert W Turner
November 4, 2017 1:31 pm

maybe the geomagnetic structuring at the pole with the land mass?

TonyL
Reply to  Robert W Turner
November 4, 2017 2:44 pm

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.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  TonyL
November 4, 2017 6:36 pm

TonyL,
Ozone has no problem surviving at low altitudes in places like the Los Angeles basin!

TonyL
Reply to  TonyL
November 4, 2017 7:22 pm

@ 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 !

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  TonyL
November 4, 2017 7:31 pm

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.

TonyL
Reply to  TonyL
November 4, 2017 8:27 pm

@ 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.

Reply to  Robert W Turner
November 5, 2017 4:34 pm

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

Reply to  Robert W Turner
November 6, 2017 8:22 am

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.

ren
November 4, 2017 1:10 pm

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

Merovign
November 4, 2017 1:15 pm

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!

Vicus
Reply to  Merovign
November 6, 2017 6:18 pm

Lol

ren
November 4, 2017 1:16 pm

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

High Treason
November 4, 2017 1:18 pm

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.

Smart Rock
Reply to  High Treason
November 4, 2017 3:04 pm

That sounds good, but IMHO it attributes far too much advance planning to “them”.

Reply to  Smart Rock
November 4, 2017 5:52 pm

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.

Gary Pearse.
November 4, 2017 1:24 pm

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.

Gary Pearse.
Reply to  Gary Pearse.
November 4, 2017 1:26 pm

Please mods, don’t hold this one up long it is a seminal discussion of the physics with no bad words.

ren
Reply to  Gary Pearse.
November 5, 2017 12:32 am

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

ren
Reply to  Gary Pearse.
November 5, 2017 12:41 am

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

ren
Reply to  Gary Pearse.
November 5, 2017 12:56 am

Ozone is DIAMAGNETIC there are no unpaired electrons. Oxygen O2 is actually paramagnetic with 2 unpaired electrons.

ren
Reply to  Gary Pearse.
November 5, 2017 10:53 am

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

bitchilly
Reply to  Gary Pearse.
November 4, 2017 2:36 pm

good question gary, i await an answer with interest . maybe ren can explain ?

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Gary Pearse.
November 4, 2017 3:44 pm

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?

Bartemis
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 4, 2017 4:47 pm

“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.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Gary Pearse.
November 4, 2017 6:35 pm

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 ]

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 5, 2017 4:50 pm

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

ren
Reply to  Gary Pearse.
November 5, 2017 2:10 am

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

Reply to  Gary Pearse.
November 5, 2017 4:44 pm

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!

Vicus
Reply to  Gary Pearse.
November 6, 2017 6:22 pm

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

Wim Röst
November 4, 2017 1:25 pm

“This is why the ozone hole over Antarctica is a seasonal phenomenon.”

WR: What about the ozone hole during a glacial?

Ozonebust
Reply to  Wim Röst
November 4, 2017 1:37 pm

Wim
Do you mean a glacial period ?

Wim Röst
Reply to  Ozonebust
November 4, 2017 6:48 pm

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.

Coeur de Lion
November 4, 2017 1:26 pm

I think I would treat anything from U of East Anglia with grave suspicion.

November 4, 2017 1:30 pm

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?

David L. Hagen
November 4, 2017 1:38 pm

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

Reply to  David L. Hagen
November 4, 2017 1:59 pm

David

I find a high probability of 50% for a natural process. Ozone is increasing both in the SH and the NH since 1995.comment image

F. Leghorn
Reply to  David L. Hagen
November 4, 2017 2:09 pm

I hope not. It was cold back then.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  David L. Hagen
November 4, 2017 3:49 pm

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.

sz939
Reply to  David L. Hagen
November 4, 2017 6:55 pm

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!

David L. Hagen
Reply to  sz939
November 4, 2017 7:35 pm

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.

Jaakko Kateenkorva
Reply to  sz939
November 4, 2017 11:26 pm

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?

Reply to  sz939
November 5, 2017 5:45 pm

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.

Reply to  sz939
November 6, 2017 8:44 am

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.

A C Osborn
November 4, 2017 1:39 pm

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.

November 4, 2017 2:01 pm

AC Osborn
ozone is increasing, due to natural processes>comment image

Marlow Metcalf
Reply to  henryp
November 4, 2017 4:01 pm

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.

November 4, 2017 2:12 pm

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..

henryp
Reply to  Steve B
November 4, 2017 2:23 pm

Very clever!

November 4, 2017 2:33 pm

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

Reply to  chaamjamal
November 5, 2017 5:55 pm

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

November 4, 2017 2:35 pm

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.

MaryWhite
November 4, 2017 2:58 pm

So 24/7/365 war, lack of work thus less eating, and lots of welfare all help the environment?
It’s all good!

November 4, 2017 3:27 pm

Ozone is created by disassociation of oxygen particles caused by ultraviolet radiation. As I told the Canadian Parliamentary Committee on Ozone, if you assume ultraviolet radiation is constant, as they did, then you are forced to assume the variability you are measuring in ozone levels is caused by something else. They chose CFCs because it had to be a human cause. Yes, it was a dry run for the CO2 issue because many of the same people were involved in both including Susan Solomon from NOAA.

Oh, and by the way ultraviolet is far from constant and is the likely explanation, along with changes in circulation of the circumpolar vortex of most of the changes in size of the area of thinning (there is no hole) and levels of ozone overall.

Reply to  Tim Ball
November 6, 2017 6:00 pm

Tim Ball

That’s a straightforward explanation that even I can grasp.

Thank you.

Phil.
Reply to  Tim Ball
November 7, 2017 5:18 am

Tim Ball November 4, 2017 at 3:27 pm
Oh, and by the way ultraviolet is far from constant and is the likely explanation, along with changes in circulation of the circumpolar vortex of most of the changes in size of the area of thinning (there is no hole) and levels of ozone overall.

There certainly is a ‘hole’, during the October minimum the O3 concentration drops to zero between 15km and 22km, there is still some O3 below and above that range, basically unchanged during the ‘hole’ formation.

Reply to  Phil.
November 7, 2017 9:10 am

Phil.
I liked the answer from HotScott to Tim Ball
not yours.

Like I told you before

how much is the HxOx in the hole?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/04/earths-ozone-hole-shrinks-to-lowest-since-1988/#comment-2655101

Reply to  Phil.
November 7, 2017 7:02 pm

henryp November 7, 2017 at 9:10 am
Phil.
I liked the answer from HotScott to Tim Ball
not yours.

Sorry you can’t handle the truth.

Like I told you before

how much is the HxOx in the hole?

Less then 1ppbv of H2O2.

henryp
Reply to  Phil.
November 8, 2017 3:23 am

I asked HxOx. It fills the hole perfectly doing the same as the missing ozone. God is good isn’t He.

Reply to  Phil.
November 8, 2017 7:42 am

henryp November 8, 2017 at 3:23 am
I asked HxOx. It fills the hole perfectly doing the same as the missing ozone. God is good isn’t He.

Yes you did, there are 2 HxOx species in the atmosphere: OH and H2O2.
OH is so incredibly reactive that its concentration is very low, H2O2 is a reservoir species for OH so would be expected to be a much higher concentration, as I pointed out this has been measured. So HxOx total is less than 1 ppbv at night-time.
During the antarctic springtime ozone in the 15-22km layer rapidly drops from about 16 mPa to less than 1 mPa (measured directly by sondes), the surface measured UV drops correspondingly. Since H2O2 doesn’t exist in sunlight then it is incapable of filling the ‘hole’, in any case the abundant Cl radicals would take it out even if photolysis didn’t!

Reply to  Phil.
November 8, 2017 11:45 am

Phil.
So HxOx total is less than 1 ppbv at night-time.

Henry says
I did not even ask night time, as it would be obvious to anyone that no HxOx can be formed from the HO that escaped to TOA from the oceans by the most energetic rays from the sun. To be exact, what I said implied that the HxOx would be reduced by the ozone, especially at night, hence the reason for the hole.
If you have data on HxOx you must show the reports, but I doubt that you have any reports that showed the HxOx concentration inside the ‘hole’.
There is a simple truth that you cannot deny: nobody died who was exposed to the ‘hole’. In fact, I think there must be many people living quite happily below the hole.
If you go to Mars without protective clothing you would not survive for very long…..
Hence my advice: don’t go to Mars until you have created an atmosphere [mostly just to protect you against the most harmful rays from the sun].
I digress…

Reply to  Phil.
November 8, 2017 8:19 pm

henryp November 8, 2017 at 11:45 am
Phil.
“So HxOx total is less than 1 ppbv at night-time”.

Henry says
I did not even ask night time, as it would be obvious to anyone that no HxOx can be formed from the HO that escaped to TOA from the oceans by the most energetic rays from the sun.

Actually it should be obvious to anyone that a molecule (OH) that has an average lifetime in the troposphere of about one second will certainly not make it from the sea surface to the TOA. OH is extremely reactive and is a very strong oxidant, it will react with just about anything it collides with, the most important sinks being CO and CH4. The OH in the stratosphere is created there photolytically.

To be exact, what I said implied that the HxOx would be reduced by the ozone, especially at night, hence the reason for the hole.

The ‘hole’ doesn’t exist at night it’s not formed in the polar winter it’s formed in the spring after the UV light returns there. Any H2O2 present during the winter would likewise be photolysed, the Cl produced by the photolysis of the Cl2 released from the surface of the PSCs wouldn’t help either. The ozone concentration remains constant through the winter prior to this.

If you have data on HxOx you must show the reports, but I doubt that you have any reports that showed the HxOx concentration inside the ‘hole’.

Actually I do, I don’t make stuff up.
http://eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk/eodg/papers/2005Papendrea1.pdf
See Figs 4 & 5 for instance.

Urederra
November 4, 2017 3:29 pm

The severe ozone destruction represented by the ozone hole requires that low temperatures be present over a range of stratospheric altitudes,

That goes against chemical kinetics. Chemical reactions go slower at low temperatures. If you want to preserve a unstable chemical you put it in the fridge, not in the oven.

The probable reason that low O3 levels correlate with low temperatures is because there is less air circulation of warm air with high(er) concentration of O3 from the tropic to the south pole. Low temperature is not the cause of low O3 levels. Both low temperature and low O3 levels are effects of lower stratospheric air circulation.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Urederra
November 4, 2017 6:57 pm

Urederra,
Yes, it is non-intuitive. That is because it isn’t a simple latent chemical reaction. It is, instead, something catalyzed by the halogens, and forced by UV. In order for the halogens to crystalize and provide the catalyst, they need an ice substrate. Thus the need for cold temperatures.

Urederra
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 5, 2017 11:47 am

There are so many problems with that conjecture. The main one being that it does not explain the fact that there are lower ozone levels at lower temperatures. Reactions, catalysed or not, run faster at higher temperatures. Most biochemical reactions are catalysed and still the reactions go faster at higher temperatures, until the catalyst, or enzyme, denaturalizes and then the reaction does not take place. If there is a catalyst, then ozone levels should be lower at higher temperatures.

And that is the other problem. I don’t buy the catalyst conjecture. There is also ice in the tropics. where the CFCs levels are higher, BTW. Why that catalyst only forms over the Antarctic? Yeah, I know about the noctilucent clouds, but those only overlap with a very small portion of the ozone layer. Catalysts cannot speed up the reaction at a distance.

Also, O3 is a unstable molecule. It has a half-life of a day at room temperature, much shorter in the presence of other molecules, like water (wiki). The activation energies for its decomposition or for its reactions with other molecules are very small. Catalysts work by providing a different pathway with a lower activation energy. There is not much room to improve the speed of a set of reactions with a very small activation energies.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 6, 2017 10:32 am

Urederra November 5, 2017 at 11:47 am
Yeah, I know about the noctilucent clouds, but those only overlap with a very small portion of the ozone layer.

They are formed between 10km and 25km which covers the whole region of O3 depletion.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/spo_oz/spmin.html

Phil.
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 7, 2017 4:35 am

Urederra November 5, 2017 at 11:47 am
There are so many problems with that conjecture. The main one being that it does not explain the fact that there are lower ozone levels at lower temperatures. Reactions, catalysed or not, run faster at higher temperatures. Most biochemical reactions are catalysed and still the reactions go faster at higher temperatures, until the catalyst, or enzyme, denaturalizes and then the reaction does not take place. If there is a catalyst, then ozone levels should be lower at higher temperatures.

Simple single stage reactions follow the Arrhenius dependence on temperature, complex radical chain reactions do not necessarily. For example the autoignition of hydrocarbons has a region of negative rate coefficient (i.e. reaction rate goes down with temperature). That characteristic causes the ‘knock’ in gasoline engines. Biologic enzyme catalyzed reactions have a range of temperatures outside which they don’t work and reaction rates go down.

In the case of the ozone destruction in the Antarctic stratosphere the chemicals which destroy the O3 catalytically are sequestered in the stratospheric clouds (PSCs) formed at low temperatures (<-75ºC), these are formed from nitric acid solutions. When the stratosphere warms above -75ºC the clouds disperse and release these chemicals into the atmosphere which along with the return of the UV causes extremely rapid decomposition of the O3. This is why the 'hole' appears in the spring, minimum typically reached in October. In a warmer than normal stratosphere the extent of PSC formation will be less so the extent of the 'hole' would be expected to be less. If the CFC concentrations falls to the levels seen prior to the 80s then you would also expect a substantially reduced 'hole', while the levels have been dropping it will be some time before that situation is reached.

November 4, 2017 3:43 pm

It’s like climate change. We can detect something now, it must not have been there in the past, therefore, mankind must be responsible for it.

The null hypothesis is that the ozone hole has been there forever and naturally fluctuates from year to year.

Vicus
Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 6, 2017 6:31 pm

Absolutely. Finding something never observed previously, doesn’t mean it was never previously existent.

Phil.
Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 7, 2017 4:10 am

co2isnotevil November 4, 2017 at 3:43 pm
The null hypothesis is that the ozone hole has been there forever and naturally fluctuates from year to year.

Your null hypothesis is falsified by the fact that the Ozone hole wasn’t there in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

Stu
November 4, 2017 3:46 pm

I always thought this issue was a trial run for climate change. 1. They found a hole in the ozone layer (I guess, I really don’t believe “science” any longer). 2. They had no idea whether the hole has been there for a million years, 100 years, or because of refrigerants. 3. They look around and find something to blame, and that would be mankind. 4. Massive regulation, of which some corporate interests make out like bandits in Fort Knox. 5. The hole is still there, very little change. 6. They issue releases saying we did too little, too late.

Louis
November 4, 2017 4:11 pm

“Scientists said the smaller ozone hole extent in 2016 and 2017 is due to natural variability and not a signal of rapid healing.”

It’s funny how these scientists can see “natural variability” as the most likely explanation for the ozone hole getting smaller but would never consider the possibility that warming temperatures in recent years might also be due to natural variability rather than a signal of man-made global warming.

Sagi
Reply to  Louis
November 4, 2017 5:54 pm

A “hole” was cleverly defined as any value less than 220 Dobson units. That happens most every year for a couple of months just before sunlight returns again. It’s really just a dip.

Billy Lewis
November 4, 2017 4:50 pm

Wow, wow, and wow. A bunch of morons throwing around sciencey words and a lot of mutual butt sniffing.

“Anthony’s thoughts on the issue:” Expletives fail me. Far be it from me to cast doubt on this noble “Anthony”, whose wordpress site shows the truth behind the lies put out by those evil scientists at NASA.

“Anthony” knows better. Who needs satellites, supercomputers, years of training, and more, when you have “Anthony” and his blog.

AndyG55
Reply to  Billy Lewis
November 4, 2017 5:21 pm

” A bunch of morons throwing around sciencey words and a lot of mutual butt sniffing.”

You been over to “ClimateCentral” or “SkS” have you.

It is noted you have ZERO argument about the science.

EMPTY mindless ranting seems to be your “thing”

Reply to  AndyG55
November 4, 2017 5:30 pm

AndyG55: UR a pot calling the kettle black.

AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
November 4, 2017 5:43 pm

johnson, you poor little petal.

We know science is beyond little trolls like you and billy.

I know the big sciency words used here confuse you…

but that is a problem that only you can solve.

Reply to  AndyG55
November 4, 2017 5:45 pm

I’m patiently waiting for you to post something that is actually “sciency.”

Reply to  AndyG55
November 4, 2017 5:54 pm

[snip – inappropriate for you to post that -mod]

AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
November 4, 2017 6:00 pm

Johnson dips into the sewer, as always.

His natural habitat..

That site at the top of your bookmarks, is it, johnson?

Reply to  AndyG55
November 4, 2017 6:03 pm

Mr Google found that for me.

Proof you can’t even type: “I’m a 366 year old male from England “

AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
November 4, 2017 6:13 pm

Poor johnson….. pays little attention, otherwise he would know I’m nowhere near the UK.

(SNIPPED)

(You need to stop with the crude juvenile comments) MOD

Reply to  AndyG55
November 4, 2017 6:14 pm

LOL @ AndyG55…..somebody is impersonating you?

AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
November 4, 2017 6:15 pm

Interesting to know you are searching for me..

Really getting under your skin, am I?

Or is STALKING one of your other many undesirable characteristics.

Reply to  AndyG55
November 4, 2017 6:17 pm

No, you’re not getting “under my skin”…you are making me laugh. I’m still waiting for something “sciency”

AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
November 4, 2017 6:19 pm

Poor johnson, you pathetic little attention-seeking petal.

Reply to  AndyG55
November 4, 2017 6:22 pm

Unlike you, I don’t post on dating sites looking for “hot Asian women”

[ ********** Mr. Johnson, not only was your post inappropriate as flagged upstream, it also was FLAT WRONG. The email and IP address of AndyG55 originate in New South Wales, Australia not the UK where you claimed he was on a dating site. – You are on a 3 day time-out and then I’ll decide whether or not to renew your commenting privileges- Anthony Watts]

AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
November 4, 2017 6:27 pm

Compounding your error.

Seems to be a trait of yours. Error built on errors.

No wonder you “believe” in climate science.

Rob Bradley
Reply to  AndyG55
November 4, 2017 6:53 pm

Hey Andy, how did that dating site work out for you? Did you get any nibbles?

AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
November 4, 2017 7:07 pm

“Did you get any nibbles?”

Only from a guy calling himself MS. !

Poor little petal was devastated when I told him I was on the other side of the world..

Vicus
Reply to  AndyG55
November 6, 2017 6:37 pm

Wow at this thread.

So many sourced Comments and for whatever reason, two people want to show disgusting conduct.

Why even try doxxing people (incorrectly) to try to disparage someone’s character with slander?

The Leftist Doctrine for science seriously worries me.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Billy Lewis
November 4, 2017 7:11 pm

Little Billy,
Your remarks are a substantive contribution how? You insult the host and his commenters with nothing in the way of evidence that we are “morons,” other than your assertion, which you apparently base on your self-evaluation of being so intelligent that you can readily identify those who are not your peers. The one thing that I find particularly annoying about progressives is their smug attitude that they are smarter than everyone else and therefore whatever they say, (even if in monosyllabic words of four letters or less) should obviously be true to all those of at least average intelligence. I will assume that your education consisted of receiving a lot of participation awards.

catweazle666
Reply to  Billy Lewis
November 5, 2017 3:29 pm

Mark S Johnson “I’m patiently waiting for you to post something that is actually “sciency.””

That somewhat begs the question of precisely how you could possibly recognise it if it was…

AndyG55
November 4, 2017 5:04 pm

YAWN !!!!

toorightmate
Reply to  AndyG55
November 4, 2017 6:32 pm

Agree.
The hole in the Ozone layer is as significant as CO2.
ie INSIGNIFICANT.

AndyG55
Reply to  toorightmate
November 4, 2017 6:38 pm

We do need to be a bit careful down here in Australia when that hole opens up in Summer.

UV can give you nasty sunburn.

Not much chance today though, been raining all weekend.

Ellen
November 4, 2017 5:50 pm

Very little lives in Antarctica to be harmed by UV. The things that do — penguins and seals — are covered with feathers or fur. Arctic animals are much the same, and in the Arctic, the plants are probably under snow cover during the winter months as the winter sun (indeed!) blazes down through the ozone holes. The things to worry about, I’d think, would be the plankton in the polar or circumpolar waters. How serious is this, anyway? Is this just another control circus like carbon dioxide?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ellen
November 4, 2017 7:19 pm

Ellen,
Also, despite the ozone level being very low, the sun is low on the horizon, making the light intensity very low. Also, the rays coming in have a long slant range, meaning they are passing through a longer section of the stratosphere, often entering outside the so-called ‘hole.” By the time that the sun is high enough for its light to have a high intensity, the ‘hole’ has recovered. Water strongly absorbs UV.

sz939
November 4, 2017 6:45 pm

The Myth of CFCs causing the Ozone Hole was debunked LONG AGO by a Total lack of ANY evidence of CFC components in the Upper Atmosphere of the Northern Hemisphere (over 10 years of NASA sampling, including the deliberate release of Isotope laden CFC), the Complete lack of any mechanism to transfer the so far undiscovered CFC byproducts to the Southern Hemisphere and Concentrating them over the South Pole, and the discovery of extensive lightning striking seawater which produces massive amounts of Free Chlorine in the Southern hemisphere. But, just like the CO2 Myth, Evidence (or lack thereof) matters not to Political Opportunists who congratulate themselves for “Saving the Planet”, when they’ve done Nothing of the sort!

Reply to  sz939
November 5, 2017 12:01 am

Thank you sz939. Paradoxically this doesn’t prevent UN and EU strangling in red tape any CFC use, including essential laboratory uses, which aim to protect Gaia’s carbon-based lifeforms from harm.

Reply to  sz939
November 6, 2017 7:49 pm

sz939 November 4, 2017 at 6:45 pm
The Myth of CFCs causing the Ozone Hole was debunked LONG AGO by a Total lack of ANY evidence of CFC components in the Upper Atmosphere of the Northern Hemisphere (over 10 years of NASA sampling,

Utter rubbish! There have been plenty of such measurements.
E.g. from 30ºN:

Organic Chlorine and Intermediates, Mixing ratios in ppbv

Alt., CH3Cl CCl4 CCl2F2 CCl3F CHClF2 CH3CCl3 C2F3Cl3 || COFCl
km
12.5 .580 .100 .310 .205 .066 .096 .021 || .004
15.0 .515 .085 .313 .190 .066 .084 .019 || .010
20.0 .350 .035 .300 .137 .061 .047 .013 || .035
25.0 .120 – .175 .028 .053 .002 .004 || .077
30.0 – – .030 – .042 – – || .029
40.0 – – – – – – – || –

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

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

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

R. Zander, C. P. Rinsland, E. Mahieu,
M. R. Gunson, C. B. Farmer, M. C. Abrams, and M. K. W. Ko, “Increase
of carbonyl fluoride (COF2) in the stratosphere and its contribution
to the 1992 budget of inorganic fluorine in the upper stratosphere”,
J. Geophys. Res. _99_, 16737, 1994.

Joel O'Bryan
November 4, 2017 7:00 pm

My suggestion is to relocate the entire GISS staff, lock-stock-and-barrel, to the Amundsen-Scott US South Pole Station to study this Ozone Hole issue for the next 8 years, Gavin can then tweet about rising synthetically rising temperatures while it’s -85C outside.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 4, 2017 7:07 pm

By several accounts, Shemya in the Aleutians has much worse weather, if one is thinking of places to send someone.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 5, 2017 12:26 am

Hear, hear. Either Amundsen-Scott US South Pole Station or Shemya in the Aleutians are fine, provided their peers will join them e.g. UNEP, UNFCCC, IPCC staff and the corresponding national administrations.

Khwarizmi
November 4, 2017 7:48 pm

TonyL (Nov 4, 2.10 pm)
===
“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.”
===

Spot on. Isolation is crucial to understanding why a pattern of depletion and accretion forms over Antarctica in early spring.

In a mini-hole,
[i] ozone is rearranged by the weather systems
[ii] and the ozone returns to its initial levels after the these weather systems pass.”
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/miniholes_NH.html

&

The [Antarctic] ozone hole grows throughout the early spring
[i] until temperatures warm
[ii] and the polar vortex weakens,
[iii] ending the isolation of the air in the polar vortex.
[iv] As [ozone-enriched] air from the surrounding latitudes mixes into the [ozone-depleted] polar region, the ozone-destroying forms of chlorine disperse [or become redundant].
The ozone layer stabilizes until the following spring.
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/hole_SH.html

As I said in 2014 (after posting the same annotated NASA quotes)

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

Reply to  Khwarizmi
November 6, 2017 6:55 am

Khwarizmi: Add an arrow at the South Magnetic Pole on that Sep 24 2002 total ozone map, and then come talk to us.

hunter
November 4, 2017 7:58 pm

The ozone holevwad discovered the IGY of the late 1950s
The conclusions of this essay bear repeating, since schills in the climate hype industry (certain academics), like to boast about how Montreal saved the world, which makes them correctvregsrding CO2.
Since the opposite is the case, Montreal merely made the world safe for technocrats and lucrative for DuPont..

Art
November 4, 2017 11:44 pm

“First detected in 1985, the Antarctic ozone hole…”
————————————————–
Bull pucky! The Antarctic ozone hole was first detected in 1956.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Art
November 5, 2017 2:51 am

1985 was when it was an urgent political issue and thus thrust into popular view on newscasts on TV.

Reply to  Art
November 6, 2017 10:10 am

Art November 4, 2017 at 11:44 pm
“First detected in 1985, the Antarctic ozone hole…”
————————————————–
Bull pucky! The Antarctic ozone hole was first detected in 1956.

No the measurement of total O3 started then but no ‘hole’ was observed, October minimum was above 250 DU then. The development of the ‘hole’ was in the mid 70s.

Peta of Newark
November 5, 2017 3:00 am

Looking through the discussion here, does it not now occur *why* such things as COPs are held?
(Were ‘we’ not pondering that just recently?)

COPs, of which ‘Montreal’ was the template are places where ‘The Faithful’ congregate to absolutely re-affirm their faith Orgies of pleasurement at which sceptics would be toxic. . Hence why nay-sayers are pretty well excluded.
Simply going to such a thing is A Reward. A holiday by any other name or Holy Day to give the original meaning/intent. Each individual attendee doses him/herself up with Dopamine (hence feeling ‘good’) simply by getting there and when there receives mutual reinforcement from all the others. They are all the proverbial ‘Mile High’ on Dopamine. (Debate amongst yourselves whether that is more/less expensive than taking Prozac)

The actual face-to-face element of a COP or ‘Montreal’ is essential because of the Human Animal’s inability to pass off untruths, hence (their version of) ‘Truth’ is hugely reinforced.
Hence why nay-sayers are disallowed – they ‘poison’ the proceedings by creating cracks and holes in the setting concrete and mess with the re-bar.

Also why these COPs need to be so large – the thing generates its own ‘energy’
It would be no good just having 2 blokes come together in a posh hotel somewhere.

An especial reason why, by example, Glastonbury music festival is so successful. It is sooo big it becomes a whole New World for each and every individual attending. It generates its own ‘something’ – something best described as magical. (Where’s Monckton these days, esp when you need a new word to describe something?)
People are ‘moved’ by the experience and they recognise that, hence why the look to buy next year tickets the very minute they get home.

Thence, the COP attendees disperse and thereafter spread The Word via technology – a place where it is very very easy to pass off untruth, generate chaff, throw insults without danger of getting your lights punched out and generally behave like a troll.
How many times do we see that even here. Look at the ill-feeling created, the absence of Empathy.
Technology does not ‘do’ Empathy.

But, despite the best efforts of medicine and Prozac, the Dopamine and Serotonin are re-absorbed and hence, every so often, a new COP has to be held. So as to recharge the belief of The Believers so they can, with renewed energy, go home and spread their version (unified and reinforced) of The Word around the world.

Was that the inspiration that Maurice Strong had – he saw the potential influence of technology?
We see how effective it’s been with ozone and now we have AGW on the (electronic/technology) table.

All I can immediately see is for skeptics to organise something along similar lines to the COPs, but we missed the starting gun by over 20 years, and counting.

November 5, 2017 3:01 am

Some have asked about there not being an ‘arctic’ ozone hole.

As we know, there are three substances made continuously TOA by the sun’s most deadly rays.They are:
ozone, peroxides and N-oxides. If you don’t believe that I can look for the papers again that proved this.
The peroxides are made from the OH radicals that manage to escape to TOA.
What I think happens in the SH (oceans) is as follows:
1) there is a lot of OH escaping TOA due to evaporation at the equator and wind factors.
2) HxOx is formed together with ozone, or perhaps in the beginning even in preference.
3) the ozone is a strong oxidiser, reacting with the H2O2 thereby changing itself back to O2
4) hence you get a [natural] formed ozone hole.
5) I would not worry too much about the hole as such as there would still be H2O2 in the hole, doing exactly the same job as ozone – if you look at the spectra.

At least, that is my opinion. I stand corrected. But to prove my theory that there never was a hole we must measure the amount of of H2O2 in the hole TOA and the amount of UV let through the hole.Is the UV let through the hole less than average, if so, by how much?

The arctic is not affected as [apparently] there are not enough OH radicals TOA

Reply to  henryp
November 5, 2017 3:09 am

Sorry. Forgot. The type of UV let through the hole is also important.
ren?

ren
Reply to  henryp
November 5, 2017 9:13 am

When ozone is produced it will decay rapidly, because ozone is an instable compound with a relatively short half-life. The half-life of ozone in water is a lot shorter than in air (see table 1). Ozone decays in water under drinking water conditions (pH: 6-8,5), partly in reactive OH-radicals.

Read more: https://www.lenntech.com/library/ozone/decomposition/ozone-decomposition.htm#ixzz4xZfJcn77

Reply to  ren
November 5, 2017 11:04 am

Hi ren
I was just wondering if we have any data on UV radiation let through the hole, compared to average ‘ozone density’
[I am posing that we still have HxOx in ‘the hole’ doing the same as ozone]

ren
Reply to  henryp
November 6, 2017 1:29 am

Through the ozone hole is passing cosmic rays, including the secondary electrons and photons.
http://sol.spacenvironment.net/raps_ops/current_files/rtimg/dose.15km.png

Gamecock
November 5, 2017 7:49 am

Is smaller good or bad?

I worry about the Ozone Hole as much as I worry about Arctic Sea Ice. Both are esoterica.

Samuel C Cogar
November 5, 2017 8:07 am

Quoting Anthony’s “closing statement”, ….. to wit:

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.

Time will tell, the jury is still out on this one.

“HA”, iffen I ignore the fact that your above statement was nothing more than a cliché ….. then I can claim that ……….

it matters not a twit if said jury “is still out” on this one ……. simply because “if or when” said jury renders its decision, ….. said decision will still be based on a “consensus of opinions” …… and not based in/on science fact.

November 5, 2017 11:10 am

There are three big differences between the poles: for one, the North Pole is in the Arctic Ocean and, by definition, is at sea level, whereas the South Pole in Antarctica is several thousand feet above sea level. Secondly, the Arctic thaws somewhat in summer whereas the Antarctic doesn’t. Thirdly, there are no sub-aerial volcanoes in the Arctic Ocean whereas Antarctica possesses several sub-aerial volcanoes. The stratovolcano that is Mt Erebus tops out at around 12,500 ft above sea level and has been active for around 1.3 million years (Wikipedia). Gasses recorded include hydrofluoric acid, hydrochloric acid, sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide, among others. What’s surprising about hydrogen, chlorine and fluorine being found in the atmosphere in Antarctica?

Gabro
Reply to  bobburban
November 6, 2017 12:35 pm

In winter, the stratosphere effectively comes down nearly to the surface over the poles, in any case.

RoHa
November 5, 2017 8:49 pm

It’s worse than we thought!
Save the Ozone Hole!

horrimokhtar
November 5, 2017 10:00 pm

Message n °: 1
New discovery incredible to realize that we passed next for centuries, never heard

THE RAIN IS FORMED IN 7 PHASES, NOT 3.
-https://pdf.lu/lsu5/ details in one page (EN.FR).
“Lightning + thunder + rain = one operation”
You will find the essence of what I advance as hypothesis in this message.

HOW THEN ?

1- EVAPORATION

2- DECOMPOSITION of water vapor by photolysis (UVC: ultraviolet solar radiation of type C)
http://www.u-helmich.de/bio/lexikon/P/photolysis-wasser.html
– http: //biologiedelapeau.fr/spip.php mot162?
http://www.google.dz / search? Q = photolysis

hv + H2O → ↖H2 + O↗
↖H2 (2/29 = 0.068) and
O↗ (16/29 = 0.551),
All 2 lighter than the air, they escape in altitude, the lightest one will place the highest one.

3- COMPRESSION (ascending and descending air currents – Opposition of 2 mechanical forces).

4- IONIZATION under the effect of solar radiation, stirring and friction due to compression (all ionizing agents).
H2 → (2H+) +2é-
(called positive cloud) and
O + 2é-(called negative cloud).

5- EXPLOSIVE SYNTHESIS
(O + 2é-) + 2H+ → H2O + lightning + thunder (the cloud is born, it is only there that one can speak of condensation).

6- CONDENSATION

7- RAIN.

The enigma flash + thunder-cloud-rain is resolved.
Algeria-Tiaret-Saida-Hounet
Tel-mob: (213) 790728135
horrimok@yahoo.fr

If rain water were formed as we all learned,

1- it would have rained much more during the warm seasons because the evaporation is more important than during the cold seasons.

2- A dense, permanent fog from the ground up to the height of the current clouds would have formed. If you say that water in the gaseous state is invisible, I would say that its decomposition is even more (final stage).

3- why do we expect rain when a storm is coming (lightning + thunder) if there is not an intimate relationship between lightning, thunder and rain?
The theory “evaporation-condensation-rain”, has no author, do you realize? !
I would be very grateful if you could share the fruits of my work by making a contribution and speaking to your knowledge (our journalists) (atmospheric chemistry, meteorology, physics).

November 6, 2017 3:17 am

One reason there’s an ozone hole over the Antarctic and not the Arctic is that it’s much colder over the Antarctic. So if the alarmists get their way and manage to make the Arctic colder (to save the ice), does that mean we’ll get a big ozone hole over the Arctic? Ahhh, the dangers of unintended consequences.

Jim

November 6, 2017 6:53 am

When the sun is less active there is less ozone formation in the stratosphere over the equator relative to ozone formation in the stratosphere over the poles. Ozone then tends to increase above the poles whilst it decreases above the equator. That is why the ozone hole shrinks when the sun is quiet but expands when the sun is active.
That allows a change in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles which involves the tropopause over the poles falling and the tropopause over the equator rising.
The climate manifestation of that process is more incursions of cold polar air towards the equator and more meridional jet stream tracks.
That increases global cloudiness, reduces solar energy into the oceans and eventually cools the climate system.
The opposite when the sun is active.
Full explanation here:

http://www.newclimatemodel.com/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
November 6, 2017 12:31 pm

Stephen

nice to talk again.
but it seems we disagree?
or we use wrong terminology?

lower solar polar field strengths leads to more of the most energetic particles escaping from the sun, eventually creating more ozone & others TOA.

Hence we find ozone increasing, from about 1995

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/04/earths-ozone-hole-shrinks-to-lowest-since-1988/#comment-2654634

Reply to  henryp
November 6, 2017 1:37 pm

Hi Henry.

I judge from the data available that since 1995 or thereabouts lower solar activity results in less ozone creation above the equator (as per the consensus science) but more ozone creation above the poles (missing from consensus science).
Thus, as you say, lower solar field strength results in more energetic particles leaving the sun but on earth we see the consequences most strongly over the poles because the earth’s magnetic field allows more of those more energetic particles in above the poles so that is where we see more ozone creation whilst ozone creation above the equator declines.
That is why we see the change in the tropopause height gradient between equator and poles and all else follows as per my hypothesis.

November 6, 2017 7:12 am

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.

Actually we have the BAS data going back to 1957 and the Japanese have it going back to the 1960s
comment image

Reply to  Phil.
November 6, 2017 9:35 am

Yes, and note higher ozone during the quieter solar cycle 21 during the 50s and 60s as per my hypothesis.
The stabilisation around 2000 coincides with the ‘pause’ and with a cessation of reducing global cloudiness,

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/11/a-cloudy-question-was-the-pause-caused-by-a-change-in-global-cloud-cover/

November 6, 2017 11:27 am

friends
I find all comments interesting and absorbing
also from
[horrimoktah, horrible name! perhaps, change the name? ]

but we need to see some more specific data.

I would like to know how much UV-A and UV-B an UV-C is actually getting through ‘the hole’ compared to average density ozone?

anybody?

November 8, 2017 9:48 am

I remember in Chemistry class being taught that ozone (O3) was formed in the upper atmosphere by Cosmic Rays or Alpha Particles from the Sun, bumping into oxygen molecules (O2) according to the equation 3O2⇋ 2O3, a reversible reaction.
Reactive and unstable, ozone decays pretty soon, back into O2 or an oxide of nitrogen (NOx), there being plenty of nitrogen around up there.

So imagine my surprise on coming to America to learn that ozone is believed to come from automobile exhaust pipes in places like Los Angeles.

When, in the ‘80s a sharp eyed New York Times reporter first spotted the ‘Ozone Hole’ lurking over Patagonia in late October, I was curious. When, every year thereafter, the ‘Ozone Hole’ reappeared at the same time and place as reported in the NYT, I became suspicious.

Now it was common knowledge among my classmates that our schoolmasters were Neanderthals, nevertheless to avoid being caned we paid attention, (A.D.D. having not yet been invented). We also knew from paying attention that the Antarctic, being a continent, was 30oC or so colder than the Arctic which is an ocean.

With no sunlight for six months there are no ‘Cosmic Rays’ to generate fresh ozone over Antarctica. In addition the cold dense polar air mass descends over the South Pole and heads North in every direction creating the hurricane force katabatic winds. The Earth’s rotation or Coriolis effect, take your pick, gives the Northbound wind an Easterly kick and voila! the South Polar vortex is born, giving rise to the roaring forties, or screaming fifties depending how far South you go. All of this sucks more of the remaining ozone out of the upper atmosphere.

When in September, spring in the antipodes, the Sun pops its smiling face over the horizon to warm things up again, relatively speaking, the polar vortex weakens and the ozone depleted winter air mass spirals Northward to show up in Patagonia on cue for the annual October/November Ozone Hole spotting season!

To panic about the disappearing ‘ozone hole’, our shield against cancer causing UV radiation, seems strange given that UV radiation is absorbed in the process by creating the Ozone layer.

The energy needed to create the highly reactive Ozone molecule from the standard O2 Oxygen molecule reduces the high energy UV to a lower energy state with a corresponding longer and less harmful wavelength, according to the formula E= H/λ.
(where E is ‘Energy’, λ ( lambda) is wavelength and H is Plank’s constant).

Other things too are going on in the upper atmosphere where most of the Sun’s damaging UV radiation is absorbed, among them the creation of Carbon 14 (the radioactive isotope of the normal Carbon12) which is used to determine the age of fossils.

Since most (79%) of the atmosphere is nitrogen (N2), these energetic little solar bullets bump into a lot of nitrogen molecules in their hunt for the scarcer (20%) Oxygens to bump up into ozones. When this happens, the hapless nitrogen can lose a proton in its nucleus which miraculously absorbs an electron to become a neutron bringing its atomic number (protons in its nucleus) down from 7 to 6. Thus emasculated, our Nitrogen takes on the chemical characteristics of an overweight Carbon atom, a sort of nuclear ‘transgendrification’ if you will.

So modified, our freshly minted Carbon 14 sets out in search of a comely oxygen molecule in the high energy stratospheric discos of the Auroras – Borealis and Australis. After a successful high altitude courtship our newly mated CO2 couple settles out of the rarified air, dragged down by gravity and reality from the stratosphere to the lower troposphere. There, lured by the seductive sirens of house and home, they succumb to the Bankers and Realtors of water and photosynthesis and settle in eternal connubial bliss in their chosen cellulose molecule.
And that my friend is why they call it Carbon Dating.
HHH

Reply to  harveyhomitz
November 8, 2017 11:57 am

Nice read!
The folly of some people who really think they know exactly what goes up there, in God’s Window.

Reply to  henryp
November 8, 2017 12:06 pm

The folly of some people who really think they know exactly what goes up there, in God’s Window.

should be:

he folly of some people who really think they know exactly what goes on up there, in God’s Window.

paqyfelyc
Reply to  harveyhomitz
November 9, 2017 5:36 am

carbon dating. good one.

November 9, 2017 5:40 am

Phil. says
http://eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk/eodg/papers/2005Papendrea1.pdf

Henry says
Phil., many thx for the paper. I will put it in my store as it proves the point that I was trying to make throughout in the comments. Under conclusions it says;

4. Conclusions
[20] We have demonstrated the feasibility of profile
retrievals in the range 6 –35 km from ENVISAT-MIPAS
based on single scans, with about 5 degrees of freedom for
each profile. Our data show a peak in H2O2 in the equatorial
stratosphere and large values in the Antarctic ozone hole
region. We also find some night – day variations in the H2O2
concentrations

It says, I repeat:
‘and large values in the Antarctic ozone hole’

So, it is exactly like I said. There never was an ozone hole. Go home, Phil and take your halos and CFC’ s with you. The paper you quote clearly proves that for some reason there are more peroxides formed inside the ‘hole’. Now take a look at the spectrum of peroxide and compare it with that of the ozone? Amazing is it not, as to how the atmosphere has been put together, protecting us from the most harmful rays of the sun.
God bless you all.

Reply to  henryp
November 10, 2017 7:45 am

henryp November 9, 2017 at 5:40 am
Phil. says
http://eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk/eodg/papers/2005Papendrea1.pdf

Henry says
Phil., many thx for the paper. I will put it in my store as it proves the point that I was trying to make throughout in the comments.

Glad to help, actually it rebuts your point, maybe you’ll read it carefully and understand it better.

Under conclusions it says;

4. Conclusions
[20] We have demonstrated the feasibility of profile
retrievals in the range 6 –35 km from ENVISAT-MIPAS
based on single scans, with about 5 degrees of freedom for
each profile. Our data show a peak in H2O2 in the equatorial
stratosphere and large values in the Antarctic ozone hole
region. We also find some night – day variations in the H2O2
concentrations

It says, I repeat:
‘and large values in the Antarctic ozone hole’

Indeed, relatively high for H2O2 but still less than 1 ppbv

So, it is exactly like I said. There never was an ozone hole.

Wrong again Henry. This June at its peak around 15km the chemically measured pO3 was ~16mPa (more than 1ppmv) for 242DU total column O3 , so more than a thousand times greater than the H2O2! By Oct 11 the pO3 at 15km dropped to ~0mPa (150DU), that’s the Ozone hole, there is still O3 above 20km which is why the DU doesn’t drop to zero, so there is still much more O3 present than the less than 1ppbv H2O2 present at peak. There is never enough H2O2 to compete with the absorption by O3, if there were the Dobsonmeter would be unable to measure the increase of UV at the surface.

Go home, Phil and take your halos and CFC’ s with you. The paper you quote clearly proves that for some reason there are more peroxides formed inside the ‘hole’.

Yes there are more H2O2 molecules in the Ozone hole than elsewhere in the stratosphere due to the unusual chemistry there but as shown above it’s a minuscule amount compared with O3 itself.

Now take a look at the spectrum of peroxide and compare it with that of the ozone? Amazing is it not, as to how the atmosphere has been put together, protecting us from the most harmful rays of the sun.

Yeah first divide the absorption by H2O2 by 10,000 to account for its relative concentration and you’ll see that it does nothing.

Reply to  Phil.
November 10, 2017 10:59 am

Phil.
You still don’t get it. Or you don’t want to get it. Probably you spent your life believing or formulating with a few of your friends that ‘a man made’ ozone hole must exist and now we all find you & all were wrong….There is a natural source for the depletion for the ozone: the peroxides HxOx and the nitrogenous oxides NxOx .

Have you got data on the NxOx as well?

I am sure every one living underneath the ‘ozone hole’ is fine as in total there would still be enough HxOx, O3 and NxOx to protect you from the harmful radiation from the sun.

Shall we test it?

Reply to  Phil.
November 15, 2017 6:30 am

henryp November 10, 2017 at 10:59 am
Phil.
You still don’t get it. Or you don’t want to get it.

No Henry it’s you who don’t get it, you’d rather believe your fictional reaction mechanisms and ignore the measured drop in UV at the surface.

Probably you spent your life believing or formulating with a few of your friends that ‘a man made’ ozone hole must exist and now we all find you & all were wrong….There is a natural source for the depletion for the ozone: the peroxides HxOx and the nitrogenous oxides NxOx .

Actually I spent several years studying gas phase reaction kinetics and more studying laser diagnostics.
As shown above the H2O2 concentration is orders of magnitude lower than the O3 concentration and does not deplete it. As far as NOx concentration is concerned it actually protects O3 from depletion by ClO by forming the stable compound thus sequestering the ClO:

ClO + NO2 -> ClONO2

However when the temperature drops below the temperature to form PSCs in the winter nitric acid crystals form thus removing NO2 from the atmosphere which form a site for the heterogeneous reaction:

HCl + ClONO2 -> Cl2 (g) + HNO3 (solid)

Thus in the winter the ozone remains at its previous concentration and the chlorine is stored in a stable form (Cl2). Once the sunlight returns the Cl2 is photolysed to form the reactive Cl radicals and the catalysed destruction of O3 starts. The NO2 doesn’t return to the stratosphere because the HNO3 ice in the PSCs descends to lower levels due to gravity, leading to denitrification of the stratosphere.

Have you got data on the NxOx as well?

I am sure every one living underneath the ‘ozone hole’ is fine as in total there would still be enough HxOx, O3 and NxOx to protect you from the harmful radiation from the sun.

Shall we test it?

It’s already done, the Dobsonmeters on the surface measure the drop in the UV so clearly the H2O2 doesn’t do what you propose.

November 11, 2017 2:18 am

You chemists have been having a ball!!! I’m a geologist with a more physical approach. In this paper:

https://www.harrytodd.org

I show how the Ozone Hole is really an Oxygen Croissant held open by the eccentric South Magnetic Pole. That works because frigid oxygen is paramagnetic. The Arctic North Magnetic Pole has been moving north at the current rate of 55-60 km per year and it now sits almost atop the North Pole. It pulls frigid paramagnetic oxygen loops across the polar bears and brings them subtropical Rossby waves created by mid-latitude jet streams accelerated by oxygen-ozone conversion.

Yes, it’s all in my paper which is cumbersome to read. I urge you, however, expand your perspectives and give my discovery a try. https://www.harrytodd.org

henryp
Reply to  harrytodd
November 11, 2017 1:04 pm

Harry
Bit busy now but I will have a look at it when I get the time.

Reply to  henryp
November 12, 2017 8:09 am

Harry says

The paramagnetic process responds to wandering magnetic poles, and new climate change models need to incorporate this rapidly moving global effect. The process might even explain the cycles of Pleistocene glaciation.

Henry says
I cannot say I have read the whole paper but you have discovered something that I and some of us here on wuwt already knew. The climate changes as the sun’s radiation changes over time AND as earth’s inside iron core re-aligns with that of the sun: the magnetic stirrer effect.
FYI, my data shows there is no man made warming
FYI, we all know of the following solar cycles (SC’s) :
11(Schwabe) , 22 (Hale), 88 (Gleissberg) , 210 (DeVries), 1000 (Eddy), 2400 (Bray), years, respectively.
{proven data for these cycles exist}

The changes can be seen in my data, for example, you can see the half cycle of the Gleissberg shown by me here:comment image

What I did not show you in my graph, is the distribution of warming/cooling SH/NH. I found there was no warming in the SH and significant warming in the NH. Initially that puzzled me. Overall, the average global warming was still showing a curve, indicating a natural process. I realized what was happening…. Come down 1 km down into a gold mine here, and you realize how big the elephant in the room is. And he has been moving, north east, to be exact, [looking at the position of the magnetic north pole], at quite a speed, the last 5 decades.

We are seeing similar warming now that we had a 1000 years ago, when the Vikings thrived.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

Hope this helps….

Reply to  henryp
November 12, 2017 8:48 am

Thanks for continuing this discourse. I like it that you confirm no warming in the SH and significant warming in the NH. My paramagnetic oxygen scenario shows how that happens. Using ozone as a diamagnetic tracer to see how the paramagnetic oxygen migrates poleward is a key to my theory base. That Chinese paper in Chapter 5 shows how the oxygen/ozone conversion accelerates the jet streams. This is confirmed by that NASA CALIPSO 532 nm LIDAR profile at the tailend of Chapter 4. It all fits together like a jigsaw puzzle. And it disproves the Brewer-Dobson theory that we’ve been operating under.

When you have the time and energy, I would appreciate your pawing through my logic train and telling me whether you think it might be true.

Thanks for your patience.

November 12, 2017 7:17 am

I am sure every one living underneath the ‘ozone hole’ is fine as in total there would still be enough HxOx, O3 and NxOx to protect you from the harmful radiation from the sun.

Henry says

I must actually correct myself.
The statement should be:
I am sure every one living underneath the ‘ozone hole’ is fine as the atmosphere is still protecting us from the most harmful radiation spewed by the sun by forming HxOx, O3 and NxOx, respectively. Subsequently, the O3 reacts with the peroxides becoming a form of oxygen again, hence the “depletion” of ozone…..

The conclusion [from my deliberations] would be that there never was “a man made” ozone hole. The depletion of ozone above the SH [warmer] oceans is natural and nature [God] is still protecting us.

Thanks to all of you including Phil. for clearing this problem up.

Reply to  henryp
November 14, 2017 7:36 am

henryp, my work also shows that there never was “a man made” ozone hole.

November 12, 2017 8:52 am

For an entirely different perspective try this website:

https:www.harrytodd.org

November 12, 2017 8:53 am
November 14, 2017 9:58 am

Harry says
my work also shows that there never was “a man made” ozone hole.
henry says
you don’t know how much I am disappointed that indeed this statement is true, having spent a large amount of my [boss’s] time 20 years or so ago on trying to find a solution to not having to use a CFC cleaning solvent after soldering PC boards.
Not that I regret eventually having found the solution, [which constituted a large saving in use of chemical] but having been misled to find a solution is what disturbs me. I even remember, working on this problem, thinking, at the time, that one day I should check whether what the scientists were saying was really true…

Similarly, I investigated man made ‘global’ warming by analyzing the daily data of 54 weather stations only to find there is no man made global warming. There is no room for it in my equation?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/04/earths-ozone-hole-shrinks-to-lowest-since-1988/#comment-2663589

Hence, what you are finding is exactly in agreement with my conclusions, namely that global T is governed by the intensity of radiation coming from our sun and the solar polar magnetic field strengths – which also affects the position of earth’s inner iron core –
[magnetic stirrer effect]

The results of your investigation confirm this conclusion.

November 15, 2017 8:38 am

Phil. says
As shown above the H2O2 concentration is orders of magnitude lower than the O3 concentration and does not deplete it.

Henry says

It would be impossible to ‘measure’ exactly what goes on up there and speculate on orders of magnitude. You would have to measure exactly at the point when a large solar flare is released, and the atmosphere is doing what God / nature had made it to do.

I postulate that a large amount of OH radicals do escape, especially above the SH, and it would make sense to conclude that the lower ozone content of the ‘hole’ can be associated with more available OH, as indeed your report suggests that concentrations of peroxides are much higher in the hole. In any case, such a theory would be a lot more probable to me than your blaming it on CFC, where the concentration of CFC’s is many times more orders of magnitude lower than OH.

If you measure UV coming through the hole you must look at UV-C, not so much UV (A + B)
If you have any data on that for me?

Either way, I think that my final conclusion on this is correct
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/04/earths-ozone-hole-shrinks-to-lowest-since-1988/comment-page-1/#comment-2663554

I don’t see a challenge from you on that statement?

Reply to  henryp
November 16, 2017 11:43 am

henryp November 15, 2017 at 8:38 am
Phil. says
As shown above the H2O2 concentration is orders of magnitude lower than the O3 concentration and does not deplete it.

Henry says

It would be impossible to ‘measure’ exactly what goes on up there and speculate on orders of magnitude. You would have to measure exactly at the point when a large solar flare is released, and the atmosphere is doing what God / nature had made it to do.

Really, what factor do you think the solar flares have? OH concentrations in the troposphere are less than 1pptv and decrease with altitude as humidity decreases.

I postulate that a large amount of OH radicals do escape, especially above the SH, and it would make sense to conclude that the lower ozone content of the ‘hole’ can be associated with more available OH, as indeed your report suggests that concentrations of peroxides are much higher in the hole.

Yes you postulate your theories and produce no evidence to back them up and ignore any contrary evidence. The paper I linked showed that H2O2 concentrations were higher in the ‘hole’ region but were still less than 1ppbv As regarding your postulate that OH radicals escape from the ocean surface to the TOA as I pointed out this is improbable since the average lifetime of OH in the troposphere is about 1 second, so about 60,000,000 lifetimes to make the journey!

In any case, such a theory would be a lot more probable to me than your blaming it on CFC, where the concentration of CFC’s is many times more orders of magnitude lower than OH.

You have that backwards, concentrations of the various CFCs are hundreds of ppt each, and contain more than one Cl atm in the case of CFC-12 (2) and CFC-11 (3). Each Cl atom destroys more than one thousand O3 molecules in its catalytic role.

If you measure UV coming through the hole you must look at UV-C, not so much UV (A + B)
If you have any data on that for me?

Yes there is none, most of the UV-C is removed by O2 and the small remainder is removed by the remaining O3.

Either way, I think that my final conclusion on this is correct
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/04/earths-ozone-hole-shrinks-to-lowest-since-1988/comment-page-1/#comment-2663554

Well you would, wouldn’t you.

I don’t see a challenge from you on that statement?

No I’ve been busy preparing exams. But your statement flies in the face of the evidence, this year the ozone concentration dropped to about 59% of the winter value at the S Pole this spring but has now substantially recovered.

November 17, 2017 10:46 am

Phil. says
No I’ve been busy preparing exams.
Yes there is none, most of the UV-C is removed by O2 and the small remainder is removed by the remaining O3.

Henry says
Well true enough. We don’t know what we cannot measure. SC’s and solar activity is a different subject and I assume that you have not studied it. But if there is no UV-C coming through the hole then there is no threat, now is there? The atmosphere is doing what God [nature] intended it to do.

Reply to  henryp
November 18, 2017 3:23 pm

henryp November 17, 2017 at 10:46 am
Well true enough. We don’t know what we cannot measure.

What are you rambling on about?

SC’s and solar activity is a different subject and I assume that you have not studied it.

You brought it up without any reason, why do you think it is relevant to the subject we are discussing?

But if there is no UV-C coming through the hole then there is no threat, now is there? The atmosphere is doing what God [nature] intended it to do.

UV-B will cause DNA mutations and that certainly gets through.

%d bloggers like this: