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

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

203 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

Jim Masterson
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.