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 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.